Lets have a fun... lets play ...the weakest link!
mark24 writes:
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.
Oh really? Assertion. You have to show evidence for your premise. Or should I teach you something about evidences and premises? ....btw, this is offtopic, you have still chance to stop discussing this matter otherwise I'll make you a forum clown once again. (the only way you can prevent this is to stop to be ignorant, mark)
And we've reached the part where you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears & go, "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!"
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.
Hohooo... Wau... What are you talking about? So Newton's discovery from the year (I think 1666) about gravitation have to be proved once again each day, each year? Unbelievable demagogy once again! Mark, mark. You should stop this (I've said something about a forum clown, haven't I?)
Well.... maybe we should try to make an experiment every day to prove if a gravitation or magnetism still works... hm?
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.
Again, demagogic question. Already explained. Stop it, this is hopeless from your side.
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.
I am just VERY VERY CURIOUS why you haven't answered to this... so I'll repeat it again and again and again, mark, ok? Until you answer. So please....
So you are saying if I want to find out if a computer can do an operation [randomly selecting letters] itself without inserted program and without a man to help it to do so, do I have to try experiment on every computer in the world? Please answer clearly, thank you. So we can get to the point very quickly.
Thank you for the answer.
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.
Ohohohoh.... I knew you will try this, that's your simple thinking, mark. But it's just another hopeless attempt. So - Demagogy once again! Let me explain:
You played football in the Sahara desert (question was why it is so difficult to play there)... BUT the most important fact is surface (!) you didn't play football on whole Sahara, did you? So in fact you have to go to Sahara to try your experiments, but only on the same surfaces you played on! So the important is "sand" in your experiments.
Lets apply it to Pasteur's experiment - "football is difficult to play" = spontaneous generation, "Sahara desert" = "anywhere", "sand" = place where bacterias are generated.
Soooo....mark, my question still stands:
Do I have to go further 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, 500 m,.... in to the desert (sand) in order to prove it's the same everywhere in the Sahara desert?
Have nice time when searching for the answer in your head.
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.
ups, you do have a problem now.
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.
I have to just smile at this moment, mark.
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.
So you are saying there could be bacterias, which generate themselves by spontaneusly appearing? (I'll repeat this question you'll forget to answer, as well)
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 is nothing just demagogy... you example is not linked with Pasteur's one in any way as proved above. And after you'll answer
all questions, we can start to talk about an Argument from ignorance. ....I'll have to teach you what does that mean, I see.
This so, so simple. Did you have a bad experience with logic as a child?
WAU... so
THIS is really funny now!
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.
Demagogy once again... proved above.
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.
Demagogy once again! ....In my experiments I have proved that information can't
create itself by accident without another information.
Not that it doesn't exist ... so I'll repeat it once again - stop this. (you know what I've said about a forum clown, don't you? Stop to be an ignorant, please, thank you)
What is so hard for you to grasp? It's not our fault you are trying to demonstrate a negative.
Well, for me it's difficult to grasp how come you can present yourself on this forum as a clown .... how old are you? 17 or 77 ?
Bye.
PS: Don't try to fool the truth.
PS2: Please explain - Evolution of a chicken -> Ready..... steady ..... GO!!!!!
This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-17-2004 01:36 AM
™ Version 4.2