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

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid? If not disprove it and show your work.
If valid does it disprove evolution theory? If so demonstrate that and show your work.
Is evolution a valid theory? If not disprove it and show your work.
Did dinos exist alongside man? If so demonstrate and show your work.
Theory says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, is this correct? If not how old is it and demonstrate how you came to your conclusions.
Do you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum theory as the general epistemological basis of science? If not demonstrate where it is incorrect and provide better.
Can you prove that there is the supernatural other than as your opinion? If so demonstrate it and show your work.

Bon appetit

P.S.
My five sequential posts on your "creation" thread should supply all the answers you need from me. Look there first.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Is the second law of thermodynamics valid? If not disprove it and show your work.
If valid does it disprove evolution theory? If so demonstrate that and show your work.
Is evolution a valid theory? If not disprove it and show your work.
Did dinos exist alongside man? If so demonstrate and sow your work.
Theory says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, is this correct? If not how old is it and demonstrate how you came to your conclusions.
Do you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum theory as the general epistemological basis of science? If not demonstrate where it is incorrect and provide better.
Can you prove that there is the supernatural other than as your opinion? If so demonstrate it and show your work.

OK - let me get this straight. You're posting these questions on a forum thread that's titled: "Spirituality & Religion" and asking for proof and method of proof.

Given my spiritual position - here are my spiritual-based answers:

1. Unsure.
2. Unsure.
3. What is your definition of evolution?
4. Unsure.
5. Unsure.
6. Unsure.
7. By example - yes.

I looked on the Math & Science thread and could not find these questions from you. Why is that?

0 Replies

These have been posted throughout the A2K board as apparently people RUN from answering them. ONLY the question about the epistemology of science "Copenhagen Interpretation" is MY question. The remainders were asked originally LONG before I even began posting here as far as I can determine.

I am assuming the reason they have moved here is because this is the latest place ROS, PARADOS, et al have chased you, RL, gunga, et al. most recently.

It is amusing that wasn't in the Religion Forum that you told me ?'I was taught science wrong'. You didn't seem to think that was out of place; thus my question to you to define "your" Epistemological basis for science.

I wonder if I will be the only one following these threads lately who will find it gut busting funny that all your answers (with the exception of the one that you turned into a question for me) are ?'you don't know', when you've had NO problem telling me all along I didn't know what I was talking about. YOU don't know you just know I am WRONG!

I knew you wouldn't provide any answer to these questions, hence my ?'ad hominem' opinion of you and your tactics.

If we pretend we are in the science and math forum would you provide answers to these questions then? No? I didn't think so. If another poster wants to take the time and try it they can have that fun. I am not about to waste my time, since I've learned your game.

I got from you just exactly what I expected.

If anyone needs proof that I've gone out of MY way to provide YOU information they can start here:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2888634#2888634

and read on for the next 5 or 6 posts.

TKO even said I put out too MUCH information. Laughing

They can end with my hypothesis and determine for themselves whether you have more than supplied the data I need to determine that the hypothesis about you has been proven true.

I am waiting for your reply as I always like to add a few more concurring data points no matter how good the hypothesis looks. It's been fun!

Laughing

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Theory says the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, is this correct? ......demonstrate how you came to your conclusions.

I notice you are dodging discussion of this same question on another thread.

0 Replies

No, I'm just playing the A2K game. But just to show you I can play the game and still be a man about it...you can take this as my response. I accept the standard theory in every field of science. I have real knowledge in only 2 or 3 (chem, physics,astronomy, and computer science if you want to count that as a field of science) and an interested by-stander understanding in the others but even in those I will accept their standard theories. When they change with new data or modify the old standard theories or create new ones I will accept them too.

You may find this a weakness to joke about. I think it the strength of science.

0 Replies

OK. So you simply follow the crowd.

Not a prob.

You are aware that down thru history, most of the major advances in science are not produced by followers of the orthodoxy, aren't you?

Probably has something to do with a willingness to ask potentially unpopular questions and take the heat for it.

Hope you're having a good day.

0 Replies

All the advances in science have been based on evidence, and not a boneheaded insistence upon one's favorite superstition.

0 Replies

If its in my field(s) I can judge for myself. In other fields I accept the experts.

Is your use of the computer just going along with the crowd of science that is responsible for it.

How come you didn't respond to my iron meteor theory. I figure you would have LOVED it Question

0 Replies

Would've been funnier as an Acme brand anvil. Laughing

0 Replies

Well, one more meeting and then I've got to go home. I'll end with a little song by Steve Martin.

?'But, ya' know -- I've seen people going to college for fourteen years, studying to be doctors and lawyers. And I've seen people getting' up at 7:30 every morning, going to work at the drugstore to sell Flaaair Pens.but the MOST AMAZING THING to me isI GET PAID FOR DOIN' THIIIIIS'

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Tiny:
I think ROS has a crush on RL and secretly believes everything RL has to say

Oh how I wish I could be a creationist. Then I would be accepted by my cousins in Tennessee. If I could just shut off my brain

Cute.

Must be nice to just assume anyone living in a certain area is ignorant. Is that based on 'scientific' research?

Actually I really do have cousins in Tennessee, and they really are creationists (but they still accept me anyway, even though they think I'm gonna burn in hell forever) Smile

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Come on ROS I bet you clean up nice and will look great in your Tux.

You bet your ass I look good in a Tux, probably far too good for RL Wink

Besides, I'm afraid of RL's wife. That woman lives with him day to day, can you imagine how tough she must be in a debate. No thanks Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Actually I really do have cousins in Tennessee, and they really are creationists (but they still accept me anyway, even though they think I'm gonna burn in hell forever)

I have cousins in Germany who think Americans are crazy to be debating evolution in the first place. They still believe that America is overrun by "Puritans". Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
But none of that explains how you can possibly think a meteor of 10km or more would survive intact.

I see the distortions have started this morning.

Distortions? You said it would be several miles high and sticking out of the ocean. Are you now denying your statement?

Ros spilled the beans when he made the comment that any meteor of that size would vaporize. Mass x velocity = energy. Some simple math rl.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Just kidding. I actually graduated in the upper 98% of my class.

You do realize you graduated 5th out of 5, don't you real life? But the way you do math I see how you can mistake that for being in the upper 98%.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Actually I really do have cousins in Tennessee, and they really are creationists (but they still accept me anyway, even though they think I'm gonna burn in hell forever)

I have cousins in Germany who think Americans are crazy to be debating evolution in the first place. They still believe that America is overrun by "Puritans".

They might be right.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Just kidding. I actually graduated in the upper 98% of my class.

You do realize you graduated 5th out of 5, don't you real life? But the way you do math I see how you can mistake that for being in the upper 98%.

At least you got it. Cool

TCR didn't seem to.

It's a fun line to use in a job interview though. Sure impresses some folks.......

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

If its in my field(s) I can judge for myself. In other fields I accept the experts.

Woulda thought that example was right up your alley.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Tiny:
I think ROS has a crush on RL and secretly believes everything RL has to say

Oh how I wish I could be a creationist. Then I would be accepted by my cousins in Tennessee. If I could just shut off my brain

Cute.

Must be nice to just assume anyone living in a certain area is ignorant. Is that based on 'scientific' research?

Actually I really do have cousins in Tennessee, and they really are creationists

Most people in America are creationists in some form.

Just after 'there is a God' , the belief in God as the Creator is probably the most commonly held religious belief.

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/20_a_new_creationismevolution_po_4_4_2007.asp

Taking the 'traditionalists ' and the 'theistic evolutionists' together, about 75-80% + of the population is accounted for.

Usually less than 15% are in the naturalistic category with you.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
But none of that explains how you can possibly think a meteor of 10km or more would survive intact.

I see the distortions have started this morning.

Distortions? You said it would be several miles high and sticking out of the ocean. Are you now denying your statement?

Where did I state or imply that a meteorite would survive intact, parados? If you claim this, produce the quote.

parados wrote:

[=Ros spilled the beans when he made the comment that any meteor of that size would vaporize. Mass x velocity = energy. Some simple math rl.

If you know the speed and mass, you can make the calculation.

What was the speed and mass, and how do you know this to be true?

Perhaps you should rethink this. These are your assumptions.

Since you are going with Bada's postulated meteorite, and want to claim further that it left NO evidence, is yours a 'scientific' position?

How can you claim that you have no evidence, but are still stating a 'scientific' position?

You are engaging in speculation, that's all.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know