• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution happens

Status
Not open for further replies.

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Working backwards from the moon/earth relationship, there is no way that the earth can be 4.5 billion years old.

Sorry, Pete. Not all inferences have to match up perfectly. This is how knowledge works.

If such speculative mathematics was the only evidence for the age of the earth then you could be on (fairly) firm ground in rejecting it. But geological evidence supports the the figure the mathematical model you have cited. This is not speculative mathematics but the result of real pick and shovel work.

I see that you are not to be persuaded by argument or evidence. I reject the biblical basis -either the Young Earth or that other one - upon which Creationists rely - for the obvious reason that it is metaphorical. It is a fine tale for cold evenings sitting round the fire, not science but literature.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Then go by its title.

The short answer is: so what?

The slightly longer answer is: the controversial proposition that Earth has a second moon so far undiscovered with any degree of certainty is irrelevant to the discussion about evolution. If citing this proposition is meant to show that science gets things wrong - well who knew? I'll have to abandon the Phlogiston Theory, reject Dalton's Atomic Theory and adapt Newton's Laws of Motion to Einstein's propositions regarding General Relativity. Ho-hum...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The short answer is: so what?
I cited that link, because someone said:
Its down to one credible model.
Of all the models (some seven different ones) that are in existence, he calls this one model "credible," as if all the others aren't.

Which model do you prefer?
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My preference - if I had one, which I haven't - is irrelevant to the issue. Positing hypotheses and testing them against evidence is how scientific understanding works. But all the physical evidence points to the existence of the moon, just as all the physical evidence points to the evolution of all life on earth evolving over time from simple to complex organisms.

Science does not explain the mechanisms of evolution fully; hypotheses again, you see? Get used to the idea that knowledge is provisional, like shifting sand dunes in a desert of blown sand. Even Terra Firma is not permanent...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My preference - if I had one, which I haven't - is irrelevant to the issue.
Then I'll take your "so what" with a grain of salt.
Whyayeman said:
Positing hypotheses and testing them against evidence is how scientific understanding works.
So what?

I'm the one that brought up these hypotheses in the first place, to make a point.

Would I be correct in saying you don't want to post your preferred hypothesis because it doesn't agree with Mr Laurier's "one credible model"?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I haven't got a preference, I'm afraid.
Is that because none of them is convincing?

Do you put them all on the same level?

Or did you even know science has some seven different models?
Whyayeman said:
I was discussing evolution, and still want to.
Ya -- after you gave me a "so what," let's change the subject. ;)

Well, fyi, how we got our moon is a part of evolution -- just not the part that's popular.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Well, fyi, how we got our moon is a part of evolution -- just not the part that's popular.

That didn't take long for you to bring that up.

The formation of the moon isn't a part of the theory of evolution, no matter what that picture says.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
59
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟46,584.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Is that because none of them is convincing?

Do you put them all on the same level?

Or did you even know science has some seven different models?Ya -- after you gave me a "so what," let's change the subject. ;)

Well, fyi, how we got our moon is a part of evolution -- just not the part that's popular.
How we got our moon, has nothing to do with evolution.
No genetic component at all.
The whole event was pre-biology.
There was no life in Earth at the time.
The only credible model remaining, is the collision model. It fits all the evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The formation of the moon isn't a part of the theory of evolution, no matter what that picture says.
No links in that chain, are there?

Just one ring: biological evolution?

The rings before it needn't apply?
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟196,801.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Well, fyi, how we got our moon is a part of evolution -- just not the part that's popular.

We appear to be different things. I think I see now why these irrelevancies to what is referred to as the Theory of Evolution of Species keep cropping up.

Perhaps the business about the moon deserves a thread. I won't be posting on it.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No links in that chain, are there?

Just one ring: biological evolution?

The rings before it needn't apply?

The theory of evolution only applies to biology. The formation of the moon is cosmology.
Two very and complete different sciences.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How we got our moon, has nothing to do with evolution.
Yes, it does.
Mr Laurier said:
No genetic component at all.
So all the other components have been plutoed now?

Another rigged vote?
The whole event was pre-biology.
What "event"?

According to science, there were five events (plural) preceding biological evolution:
  1. particulate
  2. galactic
  3. stellar
  4. planetary
  5. chemical
  6. then comes bioloogical
Mr Laurier said:
There was no life in Earth at the time.
No kidding -- but [allegedly] there was evolution going on.
Mr Laurier said:
The only credible model remaining, is the collision model.
Right -- and I'm Genghis Khan.
Mr Laurier said:
It fits all the evidence.
Until a new one comes out, the evidence is reinterpreted, or a vote is rigged.

Right?
 
Upvote 0

Isilwen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
3,741
2,788
Florida
✟161,599.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,605
52,510
Guam
✟5,128,168.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,035
7,402
31
Wales
✟424,245.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I across sometimes come that isn't my English language first.

No, it's more that you're told something factual, ignore it, and repeat the same claims over and over again, despite what you're told.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.