|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: That is what I said. However, that is not the point. The point is that there is water in the magma erupted at the mid-ocean ridge.
quote: Three places. Prexisting rocks, sea water, and primordial sulfur. Not that it matters. The point is that there is sulfur there which results in SO2 which reacts to form sulfuric acid.
quote: LOL! Didn't we just get through the fact that there are volatiles in the eruptions? that they would be greater if the eruptions were magnified thousands fold? And that if this were the first degassing event, then there should have been more volatiles for later eruptions which are the one we see? There is no evidence to say for certain either way, but logic absolutely forbids your assertion. Unless you have another logical explanation? You are going to increase magmatism at the spreading zones thousands of times and increase magmatism at the convergent zones thousands of times but still have less volatiles injected into the atmosphere?
quote: NOOOO!
quote: Are you saying that a several orders-of-magnitude of increased eruptions would release LESS volatiles? Man, have I got a deal on beachfront property for you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, funny that you do not require this degree of qualification for creationist ideas. How in the world were you convinced of YECism? Did Kent Hovind give you this kind of documentation?
quote: Yes, it seems like a lot, but mainly in the fact that the request is coming from a YECist. Normally we spend most of our time trying to explain what evidence is and what a logical fallacy is. And actually, you have moved the goal posts here. Originally, you only asked for raw data, now you have uppped the ante. Why is that?
quote: Surely not. Evolution is not as simple as you would like it to be. The data is highly technical and this has been a true shortcoming when dispensing these ideas to the public. THat makes it easy prey for creationist propagandists spouting things like "the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rock, ha ha ha!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I would never make such a mistake. But perhaps you could make yourself clearer on what you specfically think. In fact, I have noticed that you have not put your cards on the table, but still require extensive research and explanations from us.
quote: I'm sure it is. However, most of what you ask is outside my own field. Perhaps when I have more time.
quote: See above. I am only particularly aware of what goes on in my field, and even then I cannot stay on top of everything.
quote: Wouldn't be jumping to conclusions here would we? I thought only evos did that.
quote: Or maybe they don't take you seriously. Or maybe the right persons are on vacation this week. Now, why not answer my question? You simply passed it off as to what convinced you of YEC, or ID, as the case may be. You seem to require a small thesis from us as evidence, but what is it that led you to your own viewpoint? Did someone give you all of the research data, backed up by credible research institutions with references, researcher's names and authors, and back up, etc., etc.? Do you hold your own side to the same standards as you do evolution? Could you give us the same data?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Oops! Losing credibility already, Jet. Do we have to explain to you about science again?
quote: Just because you do not accept various lines of evidence, does not mean that others are not permitted to do so. You seem to fixated on the word "proof" here. This leads me to believe that you really do not understand science.
quote: Do we have to explain this again, too?
quote: I think this is called 'stacking the deck'. Not good science, but great propaganda technique.
quote: Hmm, can't find that one in my evo conspirator's handbook. Can you document this? Seems to me that the christians are the ones that have a world without end, etc. etc.
quote: Well, considering that this is not part of evolution, I'll just have to go along with you on this one. By the way, just what evidence are you talking about?
quote: But information can come from a non-intelligent source, eh? Could you please explain what you think the role of chance is in evolutionary theory?
quote: Sounds like you are parroting something you read from a creationist website... Do you mean other than some of the colonial animals that appeared after solitary, single-celled animals, but before specialized cells?
quote: Well, this divergence appears to have happened quite early. I wouldn't expect to find a lot of direct evidence.
quote: Yep, good old number 65! (Do you actually understand these arguments?). You are right: could'a, might'a, should'a...
quote: Oh, man! We just can't prove anything for you!
quote: Actually, evolution is a theory that explains the data. It is not intended to be proven. Now, I admit that in modern times, we have used the theory of evolution as a premise for further reasearch because that is how science works. The idea is to move ahead.
quote: But that has already been done. There is plenty of evidence. You simple choose not to accept it. And, frankly, it is a pain in the nect to have to counter all of these ridiculous arguments against evolution, like your number 65, or number 73, or 89 (that's a good one!). Could you please come up with something new one of these days!
quote: I agree absolutely. Sort of what happend with YECism a hundred years ago.
quote: Oops, I thought we were making some headway for a moment. [This message has been edited by edge, 06-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Hmm, now where did anyone here say that evolution is a "proven fact?" ***It is very obvious from your post that you are a prime example of an illinformed Evo, who attempts to make a point by spouting endless drivel, offering no specific facts concerning the relative nature of the TOE while totally ignoring the countless unscientific assumptions and assertions that must be accepted in order to believe in the TOE. Talk about someone adept at parroting the mindless dogma of a bankrupt theory. You seem to have developed it into an art form. Kudos!*** Yeah, well, you might consider the post that I had to work with. Just what are the specific facts that you deal with, by the way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, your first paragraph is not very promising. It is just a rambling, disorganized litany of complaints. Perhaps you could keep it to one major subject at a time.
quote: Why do you ask us to tell you about science and then proceed to tell us about it? Perhaps Haeckel is not my favorite evidence or my best example of science.
quote: No, not another one of my choices.
quote: I think I would like to talk to your language arts teacher about paragraph construction. Could you please repost this entire diatribe and organize it a little better. Perhaps pare the subject list down, also. It shows great disrespect for you audience when you will not take the time to be more cogent and develop your arguments. It is also very unflattering toward yourself. (rant snipped)
quote: Are you sure that you want to get involved in discussing hoaxes? What really do they have to do with the validity of a theory when they are not used as evidence and are not espoused by anyone in the scientific community? Are you prepared to find out that some of these hoaxes were perpetrated by creationists? Are you prepared to discusse the strawmen presented by your professional creationist leaders? I have found this to be a really fruitless endeavor. Why not discusse the most established facts and the most accepted concepts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I am so glad that you have moved to the middle of the road.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024