|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,791 Year: 4,048/9,624 Month: 919/974 Week: 246/286 Day: 7/46 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science Disproves Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I have no idea. I am just sharing information from a source I consider to be authentic. You carry your own weight around here. If you'd like to track down something in the scientific literature, look here: PubMed If you'd like to track down Stevenson, google his creo ass. If you'd like to track down the footnotes, turn to the back of the book! If you'd like to track down the title of the book, look on the cover! If you want to track down the quotes, turn to page 22! If you don't want to answer any of Dwise1's questions, you are going to find yourself in hot water pretty quick. You can either engage in debate or you can take your swiped creo PRATTs elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buzsaw writes:
That's why science tests its methods, in order to verify them and to find flaws so that they can be corrected, corrected for (eg, discrepancies caused by variations in C-14 production due to fluctuations in the geo-magnetic field), or the method can be dropped from use. While science welcomes tests and valid challenges to its methods, creationism has produced no valid challenges. dwise writes:
On the otherhand, if evolutionist science can be shown to be off to the extent that billions become millions, doesn't that implicate the evo scientific methodology as being severely flawed? Aha! The actual ages they get doesn't really matter to them. All they want is be able to say that science is wrong. And then from there they can pick and choose what findings of science they can arbitrarily say is wrong and so can ignore. They don't really care about proving their claims right; they just want to prove science wrong. As I quote Thwaites and Awbrey on my beta-version page, No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/new_index.html):
quote: The problem that Ringo (I think it was; I'm in the reply page now and can't look) presented was that the creationist "estimates of the earth's age" vary among themselves greatly, whereas science's determinations of the earth's age agree with each other overall. As I remember confidence intervals (that was after all 30 years ago and not my best class), if multiple independent tests yield the same results, then your confidence in those results increase. For example, if you have, say, 10 independent methods and you're only 50% confident in any of them, then if two of them yield the same answer, you're 75% confident, if three then 87.5%, if four then 93.75%, if five then 96.875%, and if ten then 99.90% confident. Now, I'm sure that our confidence in any one actual method is higher than 50%, but I needed to make it low to demonstrate the point. Because several independent tests yield the same results, we have very high confidence in those results. On the other hand (gee, that sounds familiar), the results that creationism presents vary widely by several orders of magnitude. Just on that basis alone we cannot help but find creationism's claims to be suspect. Science offers a view of the world that is very self-consistent and consistent with the real world. Creationism (as in "creation science") offers a view of the world that is not at all self-consistent and that contradicts much of the real world. But this lack of self-consistency does not trouble creationists at all, because they don't care about it. Coming up with a self-consistent world model is not their goal. Their goal is to kill evolution and one of their methods is to discredit any science that they perceive as supporting evolution.
quote: {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Pahu:
Scott Tremaine is one of numerous scientists published in peer review science journals who have discovered facts that disprove evolution. So, let's take it slow, one at a time. You can tell us what facts each of them discovered that disprove evolution (or even a part of evolutionary theory) and where it is published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Posting a long list of names and a seperate list of journals as references does not cut it, especially when you then say they did not write anything about what we are discussing.
It is possible none of the scientists I listed said anything about meteoric dust. I never claimed they did.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
pahu writes: dwise1: My first question(s) to you is/are:
I have no idea. I am just sharing information from a source I consider to be authentic. molbiogirl seems to be good at digging up those kinds of details. Perhaps we can get some help from her. Most of the referrences from my source are far more specific.
1. Who the hell is Steveson? Why should what he wrote (assuming that he had written what was presented; with creationists, one can never assume such things) be considered authoritative? 2. What did he write? Ie, what book or article or whatever is being quoted by that footnote? Do you know? 3. What did he write? Ie, what actual statements did he make in that book/article/whatever? First, if you're going to post something, then you'd damned well better have some idea about it. Just hurling crap (accurate description of the vast majority of creationist claims) at the wall in order to see if any of it sticks does not go over very well in these here parts. Second, don't pass your obligation to research your own posts off on somebody else. I do realize that is common creationist practice *, but you do need to do your own work. {* Footnote: From my report on Duane Gish's infamous "bullfrog protein" claim, No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html:
quote:That report also relates Walter Brown's fraudulent use of his "rattlesnake protein" claim, which is still hidden away in his book as a footnote. } Edited by dwise1, : corrected qs box Edited by dwise1, : corrected quote {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
anglagard: Since you made this assertion, I'm sure it would be no problem to show us what 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution in the appropriate thread. Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19. I'm calling bullshit on this one. Where, exactly, did I show "the 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution", hm? Please quote me. Either you pony up the arguments for Tremaine or stop posting. This is getting tiresome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19. Huh? Did you actually read Message 19? Can you show us from Message 19 "what 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution?" Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Jinx!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
pahu writes: anglagard: Since you made this assertion, I'm sure it would be no problem to show us what 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution in the appropriate thread.
Pahu: molbiogirl did this for us in message 19. So now you're resorting to flat-out lying. Yet another all-too-common creationist practice. PSIn order to label a qs box to indicate who's being quoted, you follow the qs with a "=" and then that person's name or moniker. Take a look at my post in "peek mode" to see what I mean. Edited by dwise1, : PS offering qs editting {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Scott Tremaine is one of numerous scientists published in peer review science journals who have discovered facts that disprove evolution. Hmmmm. The abstract from Science vol 259 pp 350-354 reads:
The spins of the terrestrial planets likely arose as the planets formed by the accretion of planetesimals. Depending on the masses of the impactors, the planet's final spin can either be imparted by many small bodies (ordered accretion), in which case the spin is determined by the mean angular momentum of the impactors, or by a few large bodies (stochastic accretion), in which case the spin is a random variable whose distribution is determined by the root-mean-square angular momentum of the impactors. In the case of ordered accretion, the planet's obliquity is expected to be near 0 or 180, whereas, if accretion is stochastic, there should be a wide range of obliquities. Analytic arguments and extensive orbital integrations are used to calculate the expected distributions of spin rate and obliquity as a function of the planetesimal mass and velocity distributions. The results imply that the spins of the terrestrial planets are determined by stochastic accretion. The paper appears to assume throughout that the Earth accreted about 4,560,000,000 years ago from objects as large as 20% of its present mass. Tremaine never mentions life, biology, or evolution at all in the paper. How, exactly, does he "disprove evolution?" The paper is online at Science | AAAS. Pahu, would you like to read it and show me what "disproof" you are talking about? Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
On the otherhand, if evolutionist science can be shown to be off to the extent that billions become millions, doesn't that implicate the evo scientific methodology as being severely flawed? But it cannot be shown to be off by that amount. The only people who came up with an age of tens of millions, rather than billions, were physicists (not geologists or biologists, who knew that the Earth was much older) and when it was realised that the physicists had muffed their calculations by overlooking the existence of natural radioactivity, they admitted that they were wrong. Evolutionists have always maintained that the earth is not mere tens of millions of years old, and guess what, they turned out to be right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
molbiogirl: Where, exactly, did I show "the 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution", hm? Pahu: When you looked his publications, you found: The legacy and large-scale distribution of active galaxies.Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2005 Mar 15;363(1828):613-9; discussion 619. Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?Science. 1993 Jan 15;259(5093):350-354. If you will read what he wrote, you will find that he is presentging facts that disprove evolution. Also, note that he published in the peer review science journal, "Science", which was the supject of the post you responded to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Thought i would look up some of your stuff for you just for the heck of it and because i was bored.
I turned up 29 publications by Scott Tremaine.Every one of them is related to cosmology of some sort. Black holes, the age of galaxies, determination of cosmological constants. that kind of thing. Couldn't find anything about meteor dust in any of them though. I know you didn't specifically state that he did write about Meteor dust but you did say that his research helped to disprove evolution, presumably by age as that seems to be the main thrust of this thread. Out of these 29 I just picked one at random and opened it. here is the abstract if you are interested.
quote:In the main introduction he lays down a few of the things that "the majority of cosmologists agree on" item 3 on the list says this. quote:It didn't copy over very well from the pdf I'm afraid but the point I wanteed to make is that the first term in the equation is 5 times 10 to the 9th years It doesn't sound like Scott Tremaine would be likely to publish anything that says the universe is younger than this. Particularly since he was one of the original authors of this 'well accepted' equation. If i continue to be 'bored' i may go and look up a few other authors in your list. However I am already pretty sure of what I will find. Not one of them will have ever said anything that supports your position other than an odd out of context quote mined sentence at one time. As others have said though, why don't you do your research and let us know where exactly we should be looking to find this evidence that you speak of. FYI I just did a document search on David Stevenson and turned up 77 results. There are actually a number of David Stevensons who have contributed papers on various stuff from femtosecond lasers to neucleotide synthesis. Even one paper by the name of "A randomised study of GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) versus agonist (busereline) for controlled ovarian stimulation: effect on safety and efficacy.Any idea where I should be looking? I have no intention of sifting through 77 scientific papers before lunch. I just don't see much of a connection between these authors that you claim as trusted sources and your actual topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
If you will read what he wrote, you will find that he is presentging facts that disprove evolution. Also, note that he published in the peer review science journal, "Science", which was the supject of the post you responded to.
Would you mind showing us where he says this?I have just finished going through one of his papers and all he is doing is calculating stuff about how super massive black holes become situated at the center of active galaxys. Incidentally he also concludes that it take a VERY long time for this to happen. I have access to about 20 of his papers and I will be happy to look up any specific reference that you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pahu Member (Idle past 5952 days) Posts: 33 Joined: |
Coragyps: The paper appears to assume throughout that the Earth accreted about 4,560,000,000 years ago from objects as large as 20% of its present mass. Tremaine never mentions life, biology, or evolution at all in the paper. How, exactly, does he "disprove evolution?" You are reading into his statement something that is not there. Let me share with you the complete discussion that includes his reference: [/b][/i][/b][/i] Evolving Planets? Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun (a). Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational interactions than they are to be pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together (b). (Similar difficulties relate to a moon forming from particles orbiting a planet.) Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling (c). The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons (d). a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases”hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the giant planets. b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, several times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates (e). (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.) c. Stars like our Sun”even those which evolutionists say are young”do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter (f). Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations (g). The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve. Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve. a . Very special conditions are required to capture orbiting bodies. b . John F. Kerridge and James F. Vedder, “An Experimental Approach to Circumsolar Accretion,” Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System (Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1972), pp. 282-283. “It turns out to be surprisingly difficult for planetesimals to accrete mass during even the most gentle collisions.” Erik Asphaug, “The Small Planets,” Scientific American, Vol. 282, May 2000, p. 54. c . Tim Folger, “This Battered Earth,” Discover, January 1994, p. 33. “”We came to the conclusion,’ says Lissauer, ”that if you accrete planets from a uniform disk of planetesimals, {the observed} prograde rotation just can’t be explained,’ The simulated bombardment leaves a growing planet spinning once a week at most, not once a day.” Richard A. Kerr, “Theoreticians Are Putting a New Spin on the Planets,” Science, Vol. 258, 23 October 1992, p. 548. Luke Dones and Scott Tremaine, “Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?” Science, Vol. 259, 15 January 1993, pp. 350-354. Some believe that the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) gained their spins through a few very large and improbable impacts. However, this appeal to large or improbable impacts will not work for the giant outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune), which have the most spin energy. Such impacts on these gaseous planets would be even more improbable, because they move more slowly and are so far from the center of the solar system. Besides, impacts from large rocks would not account for the composition of the giant planets”basically hydrogen and helium. d . “Building Jupiter has long been a problem to theorists.” George W. Wetherill, “How Special Is Jupiter?” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, p. 470. e . There is a further difficulty with this idea. If, as the solar system began to form, a large, rocky planet quickly formed near Jupiter’s orbit, why didn’t a rocky planet form in the adjacent asteroid belt where we see more than 200,000 rocky bodies (asteroids) today? f . B. Zuckerman et al., “Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion around Young Stars,” Nature, Vol. 373, 9 February 1995, pp. 494-496. g . “In the best simulations of the process [of evolving Uranus and Neptune], cores for Uranus and Neptune fail to form at their present positions in even 4.5 billion years, {what evolutionists believe is} the lifetime of the solar system. ”Things just grow too slowly’ in the outermost solar system, says Weidenschilling. ”We’ve tried to form Uranus and Neptune at their present locations and failed miserably.’” Stuart Weidenschilling, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Shaking Up a Nursery of Giant Planets,” Science, Vol. 286, 10 December 1999, p. 2054. Renu Malhotra, “Chaotic Planet Formation,” Nature, Vol. 402, 9 December 1999, pp. 599-600. Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024