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

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!

the fact that it's been destroyed, also with perfectly reasonable and plausible explanation, is immaterial

do you know what erosion is, yes or no?

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.

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.

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.

the point... 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.

The issue I asked you about was 'do you know the size?'

I stated it was MUCH bigger than the 100m or the 1000m that TCR was talking about , and you chimed in with 'where did you get that?'

Where you get this other nonsense about me saying the meteorite would've sustained no damage is really beyond me.

Do you even read my posts?

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 ) ?

As I said earlier, if I spent time to correct all of your distortions, I'd have time for little else, and this is a great example where make up out of whole cloth an argument which didn't occur.

tinygiraffe wrote:

do you know what erosion is, yes or no?

Yes I do.

How long do you think it would take for a meteorite several miles in diameter to erode away, leaving no evidence of it's existence, based on the relative water movement at the ocean floor?

In Kansas, there used to be a mountain 30,000 feet tall. But it all eroded away.

Prove me wrong scientifically.

(Be sure your sarcasm meter is on , folks.)

real life wrote:

In Kansas, there used to be a mountain 30,000 feet tall. But it all eroded away.

Prove me wrong scientifically.

(Be sure your sarcasm meter is on , folks.)

Kansas has only been in existence since 1861.

A 30,000 foot (6 mile) tall mountain eroded away in 156 years and you want to claim a 7 mile meteorite can't erode in 3.6 billion years?

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!?

parados,

Of course you only want to discuss the SMALLER meteorite (10km)

Bada postulates a meteorite MUCH larger than that, and then adds 'several smaller meteorites (here he refers to 10km as smaller) MAY have also played a role'.

He says the size of the meteorite REQUIRED to produce enough heat to melt the oceans is much larger.

Read it.

A meteorite of this size could easily break apart and STILL leave fragments a few miles in diameter.

You really haven't read the article you posted, have you? You couldn't have.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

I brought Shapiro into the discussion because I thought his perspective as an award winning chemist is relevant. He thinks that a replicator arising by natural processes is an extremely unlikely possibility.

No he doesn't.

He's just proposing a precursor to replication. He never said anything about replication not arising naturally.

Yep my bad.

That's what happens when you get in in a hurry. Thanks.

Actually my post had nothing to do with RL it was wondering why some people can say whatever they want on A2K about someone and its OK, but I'm called out for much less. I still think their is a secret handshake or something. I'll find out and once I get the keys to the club house boy are things gonna change

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

In Kansas, there used to be a mountain 30,000 feet tall. But it all eroded away.

Prove me wrong scientifically.

(Be sure your sarcasm meter is on , folks.)

Kansas has only been in existence since 1861.

A 30,000 foot (6 mile) tall mountain eroded away in 156 years and you want to claim a 7 mile meteorite can't erode in 3.6 billion years?

Yeah , you're right. Montana has only been a state since 1889. Not sure how we find dinos in Montana either.

Are you suggesting a meteor that was miles in diameter on impact would leave us NO evidence of it's existence?

real life wrote:

parados,

Of course you only want to discuss the SMALLER meteorite (10km)

Bada postulates a meteorite MUCH larger than that, and then adds 'several smaller meteorites (here he refers to 10km as smaller) MAY have also played a role'.

He says the size of the meteorite REQUIRED to produce enough heat to melt the oceans is much larger.

Read it.

A meteorite of this size could easily break apart and STILL leave fragments a few miles in diameter.

You really haven't read the article you posted, have you? You couldn't have.

The larger meteor would break apart and create smaller pieces but those chunks would not be spheroid and they would still have mass and velocity when they hit the ice or other surface. The physics don't change because it starts out larger. You have not presented HOW any of the meteors can hit the surface and leave a spheroid shape let alone something that is several miles high.

Large meteors have hit the moon which has less gravity, no atmosphere to heat them up, and no erosion to wear them down and yet we see no large spherical objects there. We see depressions where they hit. Your statement of a spheroid several miles high was complete nonsense and remains complete nonsense.

tinygiraffe wrote:

do you know what erosion is, yes or no?

Yes I do.

How long do you think it would take for a meteorite several miles in diameter to erode away, leaving no evidence of it's existence, based on the relative water movement at the ocean floor?