Real Science Friday: Comets
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
The rocks were accelerated by an eruptive event of a non-volcanic nature.
The excess energy dissipated as sound, heat and friction.
Last edited:
Barbarian suggests:
If I could show you such a graduation so precise that no two adjacent fossils differ by more than is seen within a single species of mammals today, would you admit that we have such evidence?
Of course. Simple variation and speciation have been directly observed. What the fossils can do, is show us that process over a very long period. And then, the changes amount to something much bigger. Are you sure enough of your assumptions to test them?
Barbarian observes:
So far, the evidence shows it to be correct. There is no evidence whatever for the laws of nature changing over the history of the Earth.
I don't actually have enemies. Just people who don't know me very well. Perhaps you don't know what "uniformitarian" means. It doesn't mean "everything was gradual."
Barbarian suggests, again:
So let's test your belief. Let's start with the fossils. Ready?
Short-term memory loss, um?
Barbarian suggests:
And while I'm doing that, how about answering the question about how a large portion of the Earth's water got shot into orbit? You've been dodging that for some time; surely you must realize what it looks like to other people.
The part that chokes you seems to be how. Why not just admit you don't have a clue how, but you believe it anyway?
That would be honest, and honesty might make you more credible.
If I could show you such a graduation so precise that no two adjacent fossils differ by more than is seen within a single species of mammals today, would you admit that we have such evidence?
Of course. Simple variation and speciation have been directly observed. What the fossils can do, is show us that process over a very long period. And then, the changes amount to something much bigger. Are you sure enough of your assumptions to test them?
Barbarian observes:
So far, the evidence shows it to be correct. There is no evidence whatever for the laws of nature changing over the history of the Earth.
I don't actually have enemies. Just people who don't know me very well. Perhaps you don't know what "uniformitarian" means. It doesn't mean "everything was gradual."
Barbarian suggests, again:
So let's test your belief. Let's start with the fossils. Ready?
Short-term memory loss, um?
Barbarian suggests:
And while I'm doing that, how about answering the question about how a large portion of the Earth's water got shot into orbit? You've been dodging that for some time; surely you must realize what it looks like to other people.
The part that chokes you seems to be how. Why not just admit you don't have a clue how, but you believe it anyway?
That would be honest, and honesty might make you more credible.
Yip. You show us the rock, the locations and describe the in situ state of all the fossils and we can talk. :up:
Why?
Barbarian observes:
Of course. Simple variation and speciation have been directly observed. What the fossils can do, is show us that process over a very long period. And then, the changes amount to something much bigger. Are you sure enough of your assumptions to test them?
Great. Here's the first one:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/hyracoskel.jpg
Notice rather generallized mammalian characters. Flexible spine, relatively short face with low-crowned teeth good for browsing on bushes, and flexible limbs for moving about in heavy brush. Kind dog-sized. Note the toes.
Here's what comes a bit later...
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif
Both from N. America, and these two have overlapping deposits. Do they differ by more than you can find in a species of modern mammals? If you'd like more anatomical details, I can enlarge on each of them.
Barbarian notes that Stipe seems to fear making any claim about the way his comets left the earth:
The part that chokes you seems to be how. Why not just admit you don't have a clue how, but you believe it anyway?
Honesty is a good thing, particularly for someone who claims to worship God.
Of course. Simple variation and speciation have been directly observed. What the fossils can do, is show us that process over a very long period. And then, the changes amount to something much bigger. Are you sure enough of your assumptions to test them?
Great. Here's the first one:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/hyracoskel.jpg
Notice rather generallized mammalian characters. Flexible spine, relatively short face with low-crowned teeth good for browsing on bushes, and flexible limbs for moving about in heavy brush. Kind dog-sized. Note the toes.
Here's what comes a bit later...
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif
Both from N. America, and these two have overlapping deposits. Do they differ by more than you can find in a species of modern mammals? If you'd like more anatomical details, I can enlarge on each of them.
Barbarian notes that Stipe seems to fear making any claim about the way his comets left the earth:
The part that chokes you seems to be how. Why not just admit you don't have a clue how, but you believe it anyway?
Honesty is a good thing, particularly for someone who claims to worship God.
Rock type, geology and in situ description, thanks. :up:
Sedimentary.
Clastic rock. Dated 55 to 50 mya.
Embedded in eocene sandstone.(Hyracotherium)
Fluvial sandstone deposit (Orohippus)
Now, how about answering the question.
(Prediction, Stipe will choke again, and demand more information)
Locations.
And you could be a little more specific. It's kinda given that fossiliferous rocks will be sedimentary. :chuckle:
The in situ description I was looking for was orientation of the fossil. Was it found all together as one skeleton or is it a collection of fragments? Stuff like that.
On that errata page Bob says this:
Sometimes Bob corrects the errors within the discussion threads. But in a number of cases, I have not seen that he has acknowledged his error at all. For example:
Bob was wrong in mocking the direction in which Moslem’s pray, showing that Moslem scholars of several centuries ago knowing more about shape of the earth than Bob does.
Nothing about Velikovsky, one of the classic pseudo-scientists of the last few decades
How about his claim that “Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter”? As though the majority of the scientific world accepting the big bang wasn’t even an option.
Or how about his stumbling over big numbers – on a show where he was pointing out how many people are incompetent at big numbers?
How about his misrepresentation of what the law of angular momentum says about the way planets must spin?
How about when Bob says that Lord Kelvin staunchly defended the Bible, but conveniently stayed silent on the fact that Lord Kelvin also staunchly defended the idea that the earth was millions of years old?
How about Enyart misrepresenting Sagan’s ideas on the likelihood of collisions in the nascent solar system?
One science claim that fits squarely in this category is when, in multiple shows (including his debate with Zakath) Bob claimed that the HDF would be a failure at seeing far back to early ages of the universe, when in fact it was a spectacular success.
One other fallacious idea that crossed several show boundaries was Bob’s claims about Io’s heat and volcanism.
************
For some strange reason, I am not much impressed by Bob's demonstrated willingness to admit error, his errata page notwithstanding.
How about you, Phy? Are you willing to admit you were wrong when you said a change in mass would not affect the moon's orbit?
Not much interested in your childish dedication to that. You very clearly abrogated any credibility in understanding orbits back in this thread.
If you have anything actually relevant to say on my prior post, please do so.
The two I showed you were from single specimens found in N. America.
There are a lot of them, likely scores of each genus, so they are very well characterized.
Well then I doubt anyone is much interested in your dedication to undermining Pastor Enyart. :idunno:
Great. Locations, in situ descriptions, please. :up:
You are probably right. The errors Enyart has made have been laid out for several years, and he and his fawning followers apparently could care less. All I can do is lay it out. If they choose to keep their blinders and pretend the errors are not there, that is their choice. That is one measure of what “Christianity” really means in their lives.
Or perhaps you think people should have faith in the likes of you?
Are you going to concede your error in this trivial matter?
In the case of those posts about Enyart that we are discussing, definitely not. On almost every one of them, if you will go to them and read them, I take some care to direct the reader past me to the primary source materials (including Enyart’s own archived radio shows).
I realize in Taiwan some children have toys that they simply refuse to outgrow, even though their peers have long since moved on.
I guess that's a "No".
lain:
Barbarian answers Stipe's latest question about the fossils
The two I showed you were from single specimens found in N. America.
There are a lot of them, likely scores of each genus, so they are very well characterized.
So you've decided you aren't willing to test your assumptions about the fossils. Fair enough. Note here that Stipe was given the chance to test his beliefs, and refused to do it.
If there's any other creationist out there willing to take the challenge, it's open to anyone now.
The question Stipe is afraid to answer:
Great. Here's the first one:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...hyracoskel.jpg
Notice rather generallized mammalian characters. Flexible spine, relatively short face with low-crowned teeth good for browsing on bushes, and flexible limbs for moving about in heavy brush. Kind dog-sized. Note the toes.
Here's what comes a bit later...
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif
Both from N. America, and these two have overlapping deposits. Do they differ by more than you can find in a species of modern mammals? If you'd like more anatomical details, I can enlarge on each of them.
The two I showed you were from single specimens found in N. America.
There are a lot of them, likely scores of each genus, so they are very well characterized.
So you've decided you aren't willing to test your assumptions about the fossils. Fair enough. Note here that Stipe was given the chance to test his beliefs, and refused to do it.
If there's any other creationist out there willing to take the challenge, it's open to anyone now.
The question Stipe is afraid to answer:
Great. Here's the first one:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...hyracoskel.jpg
Notice rather generallized mammalian characters. Flexible spine, relatively short face with low-crowned teeth good for browsing on bushes, and flexible limbs for moving about in heavy brush. Kind dog-sized. Note the toes.
Here's what comes a bit later...
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif
Both from N. America, and these two have overlapping deposits. Do they differ by more than you can find in a species of modern mammals? If you'd like more anatomical details, I can enlarge on each of them.
- Status