yxifix,
4,500,000,000. Assertion. You have to show evidence for your premise. Don't forget. But I'll forget this... We can change it to "all of the time", ok.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6
"Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21"
The oldest rocks found on the surface are in the order of 4.5 bn years old. The earth is therefore at least that old.
Absolutely wrong example - demagogic example.....Pasteur is explaining "how" and "why" it is not possible.
That's right. And he showed that in the time span involved that it didn't. Your turn.
But that's neither here nor there, the very, very simple (so simple a child could have got it) analogy showed that if you are disproving something over a large area/time span, then you are required to have knowledge of that time span/area. I note you didn't answer the question. Here it is again, please answer it rather than dodge it, this time.
I might have placed a football in the Sahara Desert. What would you need to do in order to PROOVE that I didn't?
1/ search a small area for 5 minutes? Or;
2/ Search the entire desert.
If you don't conduct a test of relevant proportions you show nothing.
You are attempting to PROVE that something
didn't happen globally over the earths entire history, you have to have certain knowledge of the entire earth for that period in time. Just like you'd have to search the Sahara to prove I never placed a football there.
You do understand the purpose of analogy is to make the relevant parts of complex (not that it's complex in the first place) scenarios simple, right?
And my question for you, Mark, is... do I have to go further 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, 500 m,.... in to the desert in order to prove it's the same everywhere in the Sahara desert?
Of course you do. Some parts are rocky & flat, others covered in sand, others hilly. In fact this demonstrates my point perfectly. You assumed that the part you were standing on was indicative of the desert as a whole, when it is a demonstrably false assumption.
mark writes:
This is why your following "proofs", aren't proofs at all. You do NOT possess 100% knowledge of what occurs today, let alone what occurred in a primeval sea 3.5bn years ago.
yxifix writes:
This is still just your hopeless assertion.
!
You mean you DO have 100% knowledge of the sea in times long gone? Let's have it, then.
There is described experiment for mentioned Information and Accident there, so it is proved.
No, it is PROVED that bacteria didn't spontaneously appear
in that experiment. What wasn't PROVED, was that information couldn't appear naturally at all over the entire globe for the duration of the earth.
Since you obviously have trouble reading, I'll say it aaaaall again.
mark writes:
You have not scoured the earths entire history, & studied every molecular interaction that occurred in order to have PROVEN anything.
By claiming otherwise you are essentially searching the desert for a nanosecond for a football, don't find it, then claim it is PROVEN that it doesn't exist.
As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.
This so, so simple. Did you have a bad experience with logic as a child?
If I observe no mice in a forest, therefore mice don't exist.
If I observe no sharks when I go swimming, therefore sharks do not exist.
If I observe information not appearing in a flask, therefore no new information can exist.
Hey, I've just undertaken two experiments that show mice & sharks are PROVEN not to exist! You can say what you like, I have PROOF! You see what's wrong, not with the examples, but with the
reasoning? Looking at a small area for a short period of time DEMONSTRABLY does not disprove anything. If you look at the whole time, & the whole area, THEN you can talk proof.
In the previous two cases, if you search a bit, you'll find that the conclusion is false. Since you haven't conducted a relevant search over the time scales & physical expanse in question, your conclusion is unwarranted in EXACTLY the same way it is unwarranted in the first two instances.
What is so hard for you to grasp? It's not our fault you are trying to demonstrate a negative.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2