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

real life wrote:

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.

Took the words right outta my mouth. :wink:

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

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 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

You've never met a sweeter soul than Mrs. RL . Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

[/quote]
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892361#2892361

real life wrote:

We are talking meteors that probably would have to be many miles in diameter, at the time of impact.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892390#2892390

real life wrote:

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?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892607#2892607

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892437#2892437

real life wrote:

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. ) ?

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?

We know the speed required for objects to stay in orbit around the sun. We know the speed of the earth. We know that the object would be affected by gravity. We know the size based on Bada's claim. We know the possible compositions so can figure the mass. But now after arguing that the remnants MUST exist based on Bada's claim when we actually look at Bada's math you doubt his claims? If it is NOT the size of Bada's claim then it isn't miles in diameter. If it IS the size of Bada's claim then it HAS MASS and VELOCITY that Bada claimed.

Quote:

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?

Not my assumptions at all. They are science and math. Gravity exists. Mass exists. Velocity exists. I would love for you to show me how a large meteorite can have either no mass or no velocity or is somehow immune to gravitational forces.

Quote:

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

You are engaging in speculation, that's all.

You are the one speculating that rocks from a meteorite 3 billion years ago would still exist. I asked you to show me rocks from 3 billion years ago and you haven't done that. Who is doing the speculating? It seems to be YOU that is speculating that there must be items still in existence from 3 billion years ago. As has already been pointed out, including on a website your cited, the movement of the earth's surface has destroyed almost everything from 3 billion years ago.

0 Replies

ROS said:

Quote:

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

How do you KNOW he has a wife and how do you PROVE it. I'm thinking he is more one of those "I've gotta wide stance" kind of guys in a senator 'Public Potty' kinda way. If you know what I mean :wink: NOT that there is anything WRONG with that :wink: :wink:

Saaaay, did senator 'Public Potty' have a wife too Laughing

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

ROS said:

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

How do you KNOW he has a wife and how do you PROVE it. I'm thinking he is more one of those "I've gotta wide stance" kind of guys in a senator 'Public Potty' kinda way. If you know what I mean :wink: NOT that there is anything WRONG with that :wink: :wink:

Saaaay, did senator 'Public Potty' have a wife too

Uh - what are you saying tcr? Confused

0 Replies

How could I ever explain anything to you. I wouldn't dream of being that impertinent.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
ROS said:

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

How do you KNOW he has a wife and how do you PROVE it. I'm thinking he is more one of those "I've gotta wide stance" kind of guys in a senator 'Public Potty' kinda way. If you know what I mean :wink: NOT that there is anything WRONG with that :wink: :wink:

Saaaay, did senator 'Public Potty' have a wife too

Uh - what are you saying tcr?

TCR is once again lowering the discourse to the gutter precisely because he has nothing to say.

0 Replies

What is most hilarious about "real life's" songs and dances, Parados, is that he consistently contends that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old. One those rare occasions upon which he explains his "reasoning" (in fact, i've only seen him offer a lame explanation on this one recent occasion), it is not that he is willing to provide any evidence for this point of view, it is only that he considers evidence to the contrary to be implausible. This is part and parcel with his overall method, which is not to provide any evidence in support of his theism, but rather to attack any discipline within science the tenets of which would serve to contradict the naive and implausible biblical cosmogony to which he is wedded.

But the hilarity arises in that he attempts to adduce evidence from geology, the theories and hypotheses of which he denies, in the attempt to present his implausibility hypothesis. He is, however, rather naive. Not simply because he attempts to use the evidence of a discipline whose accuracy he denies to argue against that same discipline, but more importantly because in asserting that geological science is implausible in demonstrating that the earth is older than thousands of years by orders of magnitude, he betrays his initial assumption that the world can only be thousands of years old, which assumption is based upon his own personal exegesis. He's a slippery character in that regard, but in the end, he betrays the poverty of his position because he reveals his initial assumption, and attempts to use aspects of the theoretical basis of the discipline he despises (geology) in a failed attempt to discredit that same discipline.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Most people in America are creationists in some form.

Well, I guess I should have specified that they are YEC's.

When I say "creationist" I'm almost always talking about the general category of YEC's, not just anyone who believes in "some form of" creation.

And I don't even come close to including theistic evolutionists in my creationist category.

Most of the scientific types on this forum are objecting to creationist beliefs which are in direct conflict with physical evidence in various scientific disciplines. That's why all of our arguments center around 'evidence' and science.

When you try to lump all forms of creationism together it clouds the issue of what most people are disagreeing on in these discussions. I'm aware that you might be doing this on purpose (clouding the issue), but I thought I would point it out just in case you are just innocently missing the point (as unlikely as that may be) Wink

real life wrote:

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.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the population has higher education degrees in the sciences? Does anyone know? (I actually don't know the answer).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
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 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

You've never met a sweeter soul than Mrs. RL .

I'm sure that's true. After all, she puts up with you, right? Wink

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
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 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

You've never met a sweeter soul than Mrs. RL .

I'm sure that's true. After all, she puts up with you, right?

You are absolutely right. Cool

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

ROS said:

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

How do you KNOW he has a wife and how do you PROVE it. I'm thinking he is more one of those "I've gotta wide stance" kind of guys in a senator 'Public Potty' kinda way. If you know what I mean :wink: NOT that there is anything WRONG with that :wink: :wink:

Saaaay, did senator 'Public Potty' have a wife too

Maybe RL is a 12 year old boy who just likes to show his friends how he can get a bunch of old A2K'ers all riled up. Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
ROS said:

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

How do you KNOW he has a wife and how do you PROVE it. I'm thinking he is more one of those "I've gotta wide stance" kind of guys in a senator 'Public Potty' kinda way. If you know what I mean :wink: NOT that there is anything WRONG with that :wink: :wink:

Saaaay, did senator 'Public Potty' have a wife too

Maybe RL is a 12 year old boy who just likes to show his friends how he can get a bunch of old A2K'ers all riled up.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Most people in America are creationists in some form.

Well, I guess I should have specified that they are YEC's.

When I say "creationist" I'm almost always talking about the general category of YEC's, not just anyone who believes in "some form of" creation.

And I don't even come close to including theistic evolutionists in my creationist category.

Most of the scientific types on this forum are objecting to creationist beliefs which are in direct conflict with physical evidence in various scientific disciplines. That's why all of our arguments center around 'evidence' and science.

When you try to lump all forms of creationism together it clouds the issue of what most people are disagreeing on in these discussions. I'm aware that you might be doing this on purpose (clouding the issue), but I thought I would point it out just in case you are just innocently missing the point (as unlikely as that may be)

real life wrote:
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.

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the population has higher education degrees in the sciences? Does anyone know? (I actually don't know the answer).

The reason that theistic evolutionists can be considered creationists in a broad sense is because they believe God created the world and then used a process of evolution to develop life in it.

It is relevant especially when discussing evolution in the context of origin of life issues, which we have done a lot of here recently.

0 Replies

In response to this continuing drivel about how many Americans believe in a creation, i will quote, as i have so many times before, Anatole France on the subject of how many people believe anything:

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

That is what is known as the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Asserting that any particular number of scientists (a term never so loosely defined as here) believe any particular thing is an example of the elitist form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. No "belief" has any validity as a proof of anything, other than possibly the credulity of the person attempting to advance the belief as an argument.

0 Replies

ROS asked:

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the population has higher education degrees in the sciences? Does anyone know? (I actually don't know the answer).

Just off the top of my head in the U.S.:
25-30% Bachelors (depending on sex)
7-10% Masters (depending on sex)
1-3% Doctorates (depending on sex)

I have no idea on the breakout by field of study.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The reason that theistic evolutionists can be considered creationists in a broad sense is because they believe God created the world and then used a process of evolution to develop life in it.

That level of creationism does not require direct conflicts with the physical world as we understand it (through science). And I suspect that not many people here are objecting to theistic evolution at that level.

Of course, you would have to differentiate between those theistic evolutionsts who believe that a deity created the earth and started life, and those others who believe a deity created the Big Bang and started not just life, but everything.

real life wrote:

It is relevant especially when discussing evolution in the context of origin of life issues, which we have done a lot of here recently.

Most of us here recognize that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang. We may argue from a philosophical perspective that occams razor removes the need to infer a deity. But that's a vastly different argument than what relates to the origin of life.

If we're going to talk about groups of people and their beliefs, then we need to know specifically what those beliefs are, and theistic evolutionists fall into at least a few different categories depending on how far back they allow the intervention of their deity of choice.

Anyone who thinks that a deity needed to tweak the structure of nature to impose life on the early earth, is in my view, not a theistic evolutionist in the pure sense of the word. They are just some form of YEC who has been forced to retreat to a deeper antiquity in order to float their poofism.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

ROS asked:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the population has higher education degrees in the sciences? Does anyone know? (I actually don't know the answer).

Just off the top of my head in the U.S.:
25-30% Bachelors (depending on sex)
7-10% Masters (depending on sex)
1-3% Doctorates (depending on sex)

I have no idea on the breakout by field of study.

Set's right, it's a foolish argument anyway. But I was just curious to see if the number of people actually educated in the science was similar to the number of people who take a naturalistic stance on things.

Thanks for the numbers TCR.

0 Replies

RL Said:

Quote:

TCR is once again lowering the discourse to the gutter precisely because he has nothing to say.

I've tried the high-brow stuff but it kept going over your head, remember?

Its funny how you can joke around but have NO ability to take it. Why doesn't that surprise me???

0 Replies

ROS:

Quote:

Most of us here recognize that nobody knows what happened before the Big Bang.

Just to be pedantic. If you assume a QM model, what came before the BB is a quantum potential field. It is the same field that explains virtual particle production currently. The BB is just an extrapolation of virtual particle production. Time and space is simply (arbitrarily) defined as starting at the big bang.

The mathematical construct of the QM potential as currently described does not need to exist within time or even space as we think of it. A moderately close analogy would be to say that we can talk about what exists at a point north of 90 degrees north latitude. It is just that we cannot speak of it as being on the Earth.

The problem comes when you have to keep reminding yourself we are talking about abstract constructs.

Just as in QM the movement backward in time is not an issue. The formalism description of an electron moving forward in time is exactly that of a positron moving backwards in time. It is often mathematically less complicated to assume the latter. It makes no difference.

I just thought that I'd add this in case you wanted to research this further and also to see the fun as RL and BD "comment" on this. Laughing

DARN, I went and slipped science onto the thread again didn't I. Embarrassed

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know