What's the point? Evolution...

[Baggins]

Nope!!! You want anwsers so Im giving them, If you got a problem with what I'm doing tell someone who cares....

You are cutting and pasting sections of creationist web sites, with attribution, that you clearly either have not read or don't understand.

How can that be called giving us answers?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok I did find something about a scientist call Piltdown, Who found a fragment of jaw and a part of a skull that could prove man evolved from the apes. Its is one of the most archaeological finds of the century. Could I be wrong??? Nope!!!

Yep. It was not one of the most important archaeological finds of the century. Dart's discovery of Taung child was much, much more important. Oh, and that fossil is real, as are the numerous other transitional fossils that have been found since then such as Lucy, Dakika child, and Turkana boy.

Do you accept evolution? Afterall, we have found the missing links.

 

[Corey]

There's no difference between a "theory" and a "law".

Huh?

Law=predictions regarding outcomes under certain conditions...

Theory: mechanism behind events

 

[necroforest]

Huh?

Law=predictions regarding outcomes under certain conditions...

Theory: mechanism behind events

What's the difference between a Law and a Theory when, say, comparing the theory of Special Relativity and Newton's laws of motion? They both make quantitative predictions about certain things and they both describe "mechanisms" (i guess that depends on what you mean by "mechanism")

 

[Vene]

Huh?

Law=predictions regarding outcomes under certain conditions...

Theory: mechanism behind events

Well, wikipedia says "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
Either way a theory is just as valid as a law.

 

[necroforest]

Well, wikipedia says "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
Either way a theory is just as valid as a law.

I always thought "law" was just an antiquated term for theory? And now I know..

 

[Corey]

What's the difference between a Law and a Theory when, say, comparing the theory of Special Relativity and Newton's laws of motion? They both make quantitative predictions about certain things and they both describe "mechanisms" (i guess that depends on what you mean by "mechanism")

The laws of motion say only Y will happen when Event X occurs, not why Y happened instead of Z.

Special relativity tries to explain what is happening.

 

[Corey]

Well, wikipedia says "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it."
Either way a theory is just as valid as a law.

Just as valid...but different things

Sorta like the difference between a coyote and a wolf

 

[necroforest]

The laws of motion say only Y will happen when Event X occurs, not why Y happened instead of Z.

Special relativity tries to explain what is happening.

In this sense, "laws" seem more like empirical postulates

 

[flatworm]

What you have posted, with out attribution, here is Baumgardner's runaway plate tectonics theory. I can assure you, as a geologist and geophysicist, that it is entirely misguided and that if things happened as he suggests the whole world would have been turned into a molten ball.

Here is a nice simple explanation of why it is complete rubbish:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/subduction.htm

I'm not a geologist, but even I was intrigued at the idea that the same slab that superheated the mantle just below the crust was still "cool ocean floor" by the time it had descended 2800 km to the outer core.

Then I started to think about buoyancy. Let's imagine the force required to force a rectangular slab of crust 1000 km wide and 30 km thick down to the outer core. I found a What you have posted, with out attribution, here is Baumgardner's runaway plate tectonics theory. I can assure you, as a geologist and geophysicist, that it is entirely misguided and that if things happened as he suggests the whole world would have been turned into a molten ball."]USGS site that give approximate densities and thicknesses for the crust, mantle, etc. Let's try a back-of the envelope calculation.

Let's assume the density profile of the mantle is more or less linear with distance from the earth's center. Using the top and bottom of the mantle (at 6.371e6 and 3.48e6 meters from the center, respectively) as reference points, we end up with the linear relation

rho(r) = (-7.61e-4)R + 8.248e3

now we have to contend with gravity. Since a circular shell exerts no gravitational pull on the objects inside it, gravity at radius (r) will depend on the total mass of everything from radius r down to the center:

m(r) = 4*pi* Integ(R = 3.48e6 to r)[rho(R)*R^2dR] + K

Where K is the mass of the core (r < 3.48e6 meters). Doing the integration with r=6.371e6 meters and plugging in the total mass of earth gives us K = 9.79e23 kg.

So now we can complete the integration...

m(r) = (-2.39e-3)*r^4 + (3.455e4)*r^3 + 9.79e23

So now we can figure out the strength of gravity at radius r.

g(r) = G*m(r)*r^-2 = (-1.59e-2)r^2 +(2.31e5)*r+(6.53e24)*r^-2

Since the buyant force equals the weight of the displaced material, the total upwards force per unit volume of the slab is equal to:

dF(r)/d(v) = (rho(r)-rhocrust)*g(r)

let's be charitable and assume an unusually dense piece of crust, equal in density to the upper mantle at 3.4e3 kg/m^3.

dF(r)/d(v) = (rho(r) - 3.4e3)*g(r)

= (1.21e-4)*r^3-(2.53e2)*r^2+(1.12e9)*r-(4.97e21)*r^-1+3.17e29*r^-2

So if we imagine a 30km x 1000km cross-section slab of crust stretching all the way to the outer core, the total force is the integral

Integ(R = 3.48e6 to 6.371e6)[F(r)dv]

=3e10*Integ(R=3.48e6 to 6.371)[F(r)dr]

I'll spare you the huge polynomial, but I ended up with:

F=3.6e33 N

So what does that mean? Well, if the slab is 1000km * 30 km * (6371-3480) km, with a density of 3.4e3 kg/m^3, it would have a mass of

2.95e20 kg

Which would give us an upward acceleration of

1.22e13 m*s^-2

Wow.

 

[dad]

So, you don't know if all plant seeds could survive in water for several months.....

I don't know that God dunked them in water, do you??

But you do know that....

That's pretty good.

The human imagination is a thing to behold!

And lack of it.

I think a better answer would be - for all the seeds unable to survive the deluge, God would have ordered Noah to store on the Ark. But I guess that answer isn't creative enough for some.

Well, it is mediocre. For one thing the bible doesn't mention it. The insinuation is the Noah was only in charge of some departments. The poor guy didn't even close the door to the ark himself. Give credit where credit is due, and Noah only gets so much. God conducted the operation, planned it, and oversaw it. As you likely know, He also has wheels, as in Eze, or a flying saucer, if you will.

But here's yet another obstacle in your way -

After the waters receded, all the topsoil would have been washed away. It would have been replaced with the sedimentary deposits of the flood, including a lot of salt.

Well, maybe the winds that blew for months, I think it was, helping assuage the waters, blew a lot just where it was needed. After all, it isn't like we are looking at some accident here. Another question for your claim, is how do you know it was that salty all over?? How much flood water was taken off the planet? (60 %?, 40%?) How fast did the salt spread out in the oceans?? (The flood was only 5 months, I think, and several moths going down) Could salt concentrations coming up from below, or above spread worldwide in such a short time?? How about physical features, that may have separated saltier from fresher waters areas??? Then, we have the massive continental rapid movements as I figure it, after the flood as well, and how they affected the mix.
Your fleeting doubts have a long long way to go, to meet any sort of reality.
By the way, I notice you mentioned you 'used' to be a Christian. What happened?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

"turns the advancement of human knowledge into an enemy of your faith"

No, because I know I didn't come from poop throwing monkeys. LOL I was created in the image of God. With all the potential which that intails. You know more about theory and such. So what? I could probably smoke you on guitar. Hardly makes me any better or worse. Anyway, we got more knowledgeable. Not neccesarily smarter, friend.

Ah, the old "I DON'T WANNA BE AN APE! AHHH!!!!" argument.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Ok, as I guessed, the subject strayed from my original question.

IIRC, you steered it off topic first with your Big Bang question.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

and What about the scientist, that found Noah's ark, and if you look it up, scientist will tell you that there was a great flood, around the same time.

You know that was a hoax, right?

Even AiG denies it.

 

[TheBear]

Your fleeting doubts have a long long way to go, to meet any sort of reality.
By the way, I notice you mentioned you 'used' to be a Christian. What happened?

Reality set in.

 

[dad]

Reality set in.

Well, let's hope it isn't welcome, and leaves again. Delusions often masquerade as reality.

 

[Patashu]

Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it. - some famous guy

 

[TheBear]

Well, let's hope it isn't welcome, and leaves again. Delusions often masquerade as reality.

Either way, this thread isn't about me. It's about evolution. So, never mind me. Get back on topic.

 

[dad]

Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it. - some famous guy

Evolution from the pond is not something that appears even if you start believing it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evolution from the pond is not something that appears even if you start believing it.

It's not a question of belief, dad. It's a question of evidence. Scientists don't need to create a magic universe full of transparant gold and flying thrones for their ideas to work.