Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Quote:

You , on the other hand, need a warm moisture rich atmosphere DURING THE TIME that the sun would have been faint, and the oceans likely frozen.

Postulating that the oceans thawed LATER due to a meteor strike (and that there was a lot of water vapor available AFTER THAT), doesn't help you much.

Obviously you haven't read Bada if you are still making this statement.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

a few questions, thecorrectresponse...

do you think a giant meteor hitting ice would break into smaller pieces?

or would it "bounce off," leaving as much evidence as the ones that seem to have hit the moon?.

Bada postulates that it punched a hole in ice that was 300 m thick. That's hardly 'bouncing off' , is it?

tinygiraffe wrote:

furthermore, what size "crater" would be left in ice that has turned back into water?.

Wouldn't it be lying on the ocean floor? And if it was miles in diameter, don't you think we'd have a good chance of locating it (assuming it was more spheroid in shape than 'disk' shape, it would probably stick out of the water in most areas, the deepest ocean trenches being about 7 miles or so, if I recall correctly. Sorry didn't look that one up to confirm , so feel free to trash me if my memory is bad. Laughing

) ?

tinygiraffe wrote:

i know these are important "scientific" puzzles to some people, not obvious things being deliberately taken for granted

Are you implying that Bada's hypothesis is not 'scientific' ? Or that it's not 'scientific' to question it?

0 Replies

6,000 year old earth?

3 billion year old earth?

4.5 billion year old earth?

you pick 'em year old earth?

Laughing

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

real life wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Some more real science to get in the way.

Meteor impacts and their consequences:

The type of meteor impact that would occur on an average once every 7.6x 10EXP6 years during the last 4 billion years, with some assumptions such as type of soil. Etc, is given here:

Projectile Diameter: 100.00 m = 328.00 ft = 0.06 miles
Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 51.00 km/s = 31.67 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.02 x 1018 Joules = 2.44 x 102 MegaTons TNT

The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 90100 meters = 295000 ft
The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 2750 meters = 9020 ft
The residual velocity of the projectile fragments after the burst is 6.9 km/s = 4.28 miles/s

The energy of the airburst is 1.00 x 1018 Joules = 2.40 x 102 MegaTons.
No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.

*********************************************************

The type of meteor impact that would occur on an average once every 1.5x 10EXP6 years during the last 4 billion years, with some assumptions such as type of soil. Etc, is given here:

Projectile Diameter: 1000.00 m = 3280.00 ft = 0.62 miles
Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 51.00 km/s = 31.67 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.02 x 1021 Joules = 2.44 x 105 MegaTons TNT

The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 90100 meters = 295000 ft
The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of projectile strikes the surface at velocity 50.2 km/s = 31.2 miles/s
The impact energy is 9.91 x 1020 Joules = 2.37 x 105MegaTons.
The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of dimension 1.83 km by 1.3 km

Transient Crater Diameter: 13.5 km = 8.4 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 4.78 km = 2.97 miles

Final Crater Diameter: 19.1 km = 11.9 miles
Final Crater Depth: 0.719 km = 0.446 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 6.24 km3 = 1.5 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater, where its average thickness is 43.4 meters = 142 feet

Interesting stuff for comparison. Thanks TCR.

The meteor proposed by Bada is MUCH bigger than either the 100m or the 1000m meteors included in the info you cite.

Have you read the article yet?

If such a meteor were to have struck earth, I think it unlikely that there would be no evidence of it today.

What do you think?

I guess that would depend:
6,000 year old earth
3 billion year old earth
4.5 billion year old earth?

Take your pick and tell me what you think.

Have you read the article parados linked?

0 Replies

Tell me what your meteor is made of, the diameter, and what type of "ground" it hits and when I come back from my client meeting I'll tell you. Probably be a few hours. You probably won't believe me... but that's half the fun right?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Interesting stuff for comparison. Thanks TCR.

The meteor proposed by Bada is MUCH bigger than either the 100m or the 1000m meteors included in the info you cite.
Oh? Could you quote that part of Bada please?

Quote:

Have you read the article yet?
I am guessing you haven't.

Yeah I have. It's a short article and if you are asking me to quote a section of it having information as critical to the discussion as the size of the meteor, then it leads me to question either your claim to have read it, or your ability to understand it.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Tell me what your meteor is made of, the diameter, and what type of "ground" it hits and when I come back from my client meeting I'll tell you. Probably be a few hours. You probably won't believe me... but that's half the fun right?

Not my meteor.

It's in the article, postulated as hitting the frozen ocean (300 meters thick ice) and punching a hole through it.

If you're interested , it's a fascinating read.

If you're too busy today, I know the feeling. Have a good one. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:
a few questions, thecorrectresponse...

do you think a giant meteor hitting ice would break into smaller pieces?

or would it "bounce off," leaving as much evidence as the ones that seem to have hit the moon?.

Bada postulates that it punched a hole in ice that was 300 m thick. That's hardly 'bouncing off' , is it?

tinygiraffe wrote:
furthermore, what size "crater" would be left in ice that has turned back into water?.

Wouldn't it be lying on the ocean floor?

ROFLMAO....

Quote:

And if it was miles in diameter, don't you think we'd have a good chance of locating it (assuming it was more spheroid in shape than 'disk' shape, it would probably stick out of the water in most areas, the deepest ocean trenches being about 7 miles or so, if I recall correctly. Sorry didn't look that one up to confirm , so feel free to trash me if my memory is bad. ) ?

You don't understand the energy calculations, do you? Somehow in your world meteors are immune to the intense heat they produce on impact? I guess we should not only ignore thermodynamics but also the laws of physics so we can think like you. If 25% of the energy of the impact raises the temperature of the ENTIRE earth 140 degrees centigrade, Lets assume half of the other energy goes into heat at the impact site. That earth has over 57 million square miles. The impact site of a 15 mile diameter meteor would have a HELL of a lot of heat, don't you think? And you want to claim the meteor would be a "sphere"? or even a disk? But then of course you ignore what 3 billion years of water movement can and will do to any rock.

0 Replies

Quote:

But then of course you ignore what 3 billion years of water movement can and will do to any rock.

thanks, that was the first thing that came to my mind, and why i kept mentioning timespan. of course, it was REALLY BIG, so water (let alone air) couldn't do anything to it. and i don't even know enough about meteors to guess about them melting. funny thing is, i wouldn't even have to, to spot a lie that's 300 meters wide.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
tinygiraffe wrote:
a few questions, thecorrectresponse...

do you think a giant meteor hitting ice would break into smaller pieces?

or would it "bounce off," leaving as much evidence as the ones that seem to have hit the moon?.

Bada postulates that it punched a hole in ice that was 300 m thick. That's hardly 'bouncing off' , is it?

tinygiraffe wrote:
furthermore, what size "crater" would be left in ice that has turned back into water?.

Wouldn't it be lying on the ocean floor?
ROFLMAO....

Quote:

And if it was miles in diameter, don't you think we'd have a good chance of locating it (assuming it was more spheroid in shape than 'disk' shape, it would probably stick out of the water in most areas, the deepest ocean trenches being about 7 miles or so, if I recall correctly. Sorry didn't look that one up to confirm , so feel free to trash me if my memory is bad. ) ?

You don't understand the energy calculations, do you? Somehow in your world meteors are immune to the intense heat they produce on impact? I guess we should not only ignore thermodynamics but also the laws of physics so we can think like you. If 25% of the energy of the impact raises the temperature of the ENTIRE earth 140 degrees centigrade, Lets assume half of the other energy goes into heat at the impact site. That earth has over 57 million square miles. The impact site of a 15 mile diameter meteor would have a HELL of a lot of heat, don't you think? And you want to claim the meteor would be a "sphere"? or even a disk? But then of course you ignore what 3 billion years of water movement can and will do to any rock.

Do you think there are ANY rocks on the ocean floor , parados?

Or do you think they have ALL been destroyed by 'water movement' ? Laughing

If we are to suppose (as you seem to want us to) that an object of this size left NO evidence, then is it 'scientific' evidence that you are proposing, or simply wishful guesswork?

0 Replies

don't tell me parados, there's ANY evidence the post before this one should be responded to as if it's serious.

obviously, he has refuted the idea that water can destroy giant rocks, by pointing out that other rocks exist. that's the kind of irrefutable genius we're all up against. and he's laughing at us for not realizing it.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe,

Maybe you should check your assumptions before posting.

Even if we accept your implication that the meteor 'could have' been destroyed by water action on the ocean floor (when many other much smaller rocks survive. Hey coulda happened) ........

........we are then left with no evidence of this meteor's existence. Is it scientific to assume it did exist?

0 Replies

Yeah, but RL, meteors never get to earth; so how could they be found?

I can't understand what this speculation is about to prove or disprove.

It is fun to watch, however.

0 Replies

Correct as usual, O Technical one.

We all should have used the proper 'meteorite'.

Hope you are doing well. Glad you're enjoying this.

I do too. It will be interesting to see if our 'scientific' types here on A2K will insist that a phenom with NO evidence can be considered the subject of a 'scientific' inquiry.

'Yeah, there was this meteorite see, and there's no evidence of it, you know, but it really WAS there, I know it because I am a scientist, see.......'

0 Replies

the point, you lying son of a bitch, is that a meteorite is a perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation. the fact that it's been destroyed, also with perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation, is immaterial, just as your creator theory is. but that doesnt mean the meteor existed. it means it's a more plausible explanation.

creationism had its day. we used to talk about gods and call it science, and at one point that was the bleeding edge of scientific thought. and you know what? if you want to talk about gods, that's just fine with me, if you're going to be honest.

if you're going to trash the better theories that have come along, and constantly twist everything around and ignore every fact that you have at your disposal so long as it weakens your argument, like the fact that water destroys rocks (even if some obviously remain, you stupid ****,) then it's a pointless discussion, not a religious or scientific one. you want to lie, because you obviously think it's ok, because you can't figure out that you might be wrong.

creationism is a perfectly okay theory for teaching in a church, or a science class from 1500 years ago. but we don't waste time with that crap in classes where we're trying to explain the most plausible theories, not delude people by pretending we don't know what EROSION is. there are two people on this forum more disgusting than you, but at least they appear geniune. the best thing you could possibly do to help creationism is **** off. all you're doing is making religion look retarded, and creationism look like an enormous lie. you're not clever, you're just a ****ing ass.

do you know what erosion is, yes or no? do you "disbelieve" erosion in addition to evolution? **** you.

0 Replies

And here come the ad homs.

How predictable.

Rather than simply admit that the idea of a huge meteorite hitting the earth and leaving no evidence is simply interesting speculation, (much less a 'fact' as you imply)......

...........instead you pull out the Don Rickles playbook to shove off anyone who DARES question what you've already apparently accepted as gospel.

What a bore.

If you can produce some evidence for this, then it can be addressed scientifically.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

tinygiraffe,

Maybe you should check your assumptions before posting.

Even if we accept your implication that the meteor 'could have' been destroyed by water action on the ocean floor (when many other much smaller rocks survive. Hey coulda happened) ........ Really?

Which rocks at the bottom of the ocean are 3 billion years old? Could you point them out to us? Tell us why you think they are 3 billion years old then tell us how you proved it with Carbon14 dating techniques. We don't want to assume so give us your science.

I see you think we should discard geology as well as physics and thermodynamics. The earth has created and destroyed rocks since it was formed. None of the original rocks still exist intact in their original form but we still have rocks.

For those that haven't made it to the 5th grade yet...
How Rocks are formed

Quote:

........we are then left with no evidence of this meteor's existence. Is it scientific to assume it did exist?

We have no evidence the oceans were frozen but you trotted that out and demanded we respond to it. You are doing nothing but throwing out more ****. You claim we have no evidence of meteors but we don't have frozen oceans so give us your reasoning as to why the oceans were frozen and now they aren't. Or are you denying you ever claimed the oceans were frozen?

Some simple questions for you to clarify so we don't make assumptions based on your inability to use the English language.
1. Do you think there was water vapor in the air when the oceans were frozen? yes or no?
2. Do you think the oceans were frozen 3 billion years ago?
3. Do you think the earth is more than 3 billion years old.

0 Replies

i wrote:

creationism had its day. we used to talk about gods and call it science, and at one point that was the bleeding edge of scientific thought. and you know what? if you want to talk about gods, that's just fine with me, if you're going to be honest... ...not delude people by pretending we don't know what EROSION is.

you wrote:

...........instead you pull out the Don Rickles playbook to shove off anyone who DARES question what you've already apparently accepted as gospel.

LIE!

i wrote:

but that doesnt mean the meteor existed. it means it's a more plausible explanation.

you wrote:

Rather than simply admit that the idea of a huge meteorite hitting the earth and leaving no evidence is simply interesting speculation, (much less a 'fact' as you imply)......

LIE!

i don't hate you for disagreeing. you're a smug, disingenuine piece of **** that lies all the time just to annoy people.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Interesting stuff for comparison. Thanks TCR.

The meteor proposed by Bada is MUCH bigger than either the 100m or the 1000m meteors included in the info you cite.
Oh? Could you quote that part of Bada please?

Quote:

Have you read the article yet?
I am guessing you haven't.

Yeah I have. It's a short article and if you are asking me to quote a section of it having information as critical to the discussion as the size of the meteor, then it leads me to question either your claim to have read it, or your ability to understand it.

But you haven't told us what happened to the rest of the energy during the bolide impact. You say I don't understand it but the math is right there. Where did the other energy go and how did the object hit the earth and stay intact. Please show us your math that would indicate the bolide object would not take any damage. I am just curious how you think an object can survive the equivalent of several million tons of TNT.

If you truly read the piece by Bada and understood it real life you would realize it answers your question about how the RNA all found each other.

0 Replies

Tiny:

OK NOW.WAIT A MINUTE.WAIT JUST ONE DARN MINUTE.

I call RL., B.D., and Gunga cowards and liars based on numerous examples of them being just that on numerous responses to me and ROS and TKO call me out on it.

YOU go off on RL -- TWICE -- in language that makes me look like I said: "er, if you could please excuse me gentlemen" and you get NADA from them. They seem to have NO trouble with it at all. Is there some secret handshake that I don't know about here on A2K. Is there some club initiation fee I didn't pay, or do these two just have something against me personally! I mean, come on. You don't even rate a "tisk" from either one of them!?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know