SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

quote:

---

I will happily state, however, the thread of the evolutionary sweater will not be pulled apart whether the conditional reasoning connected with the Oot cloud proves true or false.

---

You are right. The question isn't fundamental. No one bases the age of the Earth on the frelling Oort cloud. It can exist or not. It doesn't matter. But, as has been stated, the Oort cloud wasn't simply made up. It was postulated because evidence points to its existence.The Oort cloud/evolution is false argument is flawed, at any rate. I addressed this back in post #21 .------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-28-2003]

Hmmm... that's interesting, Quetzal. I hadn't heard that before.There's also the possibility of an impact at the end of the Permian resulting in mass extinctions - the largest mass extinction event ever.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-28-2003]

I'd heard about the Permian one - no smoking gun tho'. I thought they'd decided it was the Siberian Traps kicking off that ended the Permian? (I really have to check on the most recent theories - especially the Permian one which nearly cancelled the whole experiment).

The one thing I heard that I am quite sure would be hotly debated (damn geologists! ) is that the Siberian Traps may be the result of a very large impact on the other (opposite) side of the planet. I need to read up on the specifics, but apparently the shockwaves traveled through the earth, converging(?) and exiting(?) in Siberia. The heat created was enough to melt a portion of the mantle and the subsequent magma traveled up to the surface erupting as flood basalts.I believe one of the problems with this theory is that although there appear to be iridum spikes at or near the P-T boundary, they are small. Age may be an important factor, however.Of course this could all be old news and discarded at this point, but I thought it was a rather interesting idea. I've heard some folks in the minerals industry have considered including this theory in their exploration models - mainly looking for intrusive-related base-metal and PGE deposits. or perhaps the astrobleme is buried beneath the two million square kilometers of flood basalt??? Hmmm, I might have to go check out some aerial photos

quote:

---

Actually, the average comet period appears to be 40000 years, with some periods over a million years:

​

Comet periods

---

I disagree they provide no proof for this and you can never recieve an exact estimate, you have to use keplar's and another law to figure it out, this shows a differing opinion: Comets and the Age of the Solar System | Answers in Genesis I will follow up on this too don't worry if this doesn't seem like a good answer.------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 08-28-2003]

quote:

---

I disagree they provide no proof for this and you can never recieve an exact estimate, you have to use keplar's and another law to figure it out, this shows a differing opinion: Comets and the Age of the Solar System | Answers in Genesis

​

I will follow up on this too don't worry if this doesn't seem like a good answer.

---

If I were a layman attempting to discredit a whole field of experts who all agreed on something, I wouldn't claim "differing opinion" was responsible for our divergent viewpoints. It's a really weak argument to which certain creationists resort after all their substantial arguments are refuted: "you're just interpreting the data differently."I will agree that different people interpret the facts differently. In this case, those who interpret the facts in a way that disagrees with science are those who have an emotional investment in a particular conclusion before they ever examine the evidence. What does that say to you?[This message has been edited by zephyr, 08-28-2003]

quote:

---

In this case, those who interpret the facts in a way that disagrees with science are those who have an emotional investment in a particular conclusion before they ever examine the evidence. What does that say to you?

---

And atheists don't? .....------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that "atheists" intentionally misinterpret data to *protect* evolutionary theory? That we have some emotional attachment to it?Fact is 99% of the scientists have absolutely no emotional or professional attachment to the ToE at all. Basically most geologists could give a crap about evolutionary theory, and I'm sure this is the same for most physicists, cosmologists, etc. - outside of it being an minor interest of theirs.As a staunch evolutionist, an atheist, and a geologist, I have never gone out to do fieldwork thinking, "Today, if I find something that disproves evolution, I will promptly lose it or interpret it so it's not a problem." Ridiculous; and what a waste of my time that would be! Not to mention making my job harder and possibly getting fired.I could care less whether my work has any effect whatsoever on the ToE. Your accusations are hogwash.

Quetzal,I note the apparent meteorite impacts you have mentioned which seem to coincide with significant extinction or diversification events in the fossil record.However, my point was to dispute weary pilgrim's expectation that astronomy should be somehow explicitly factored into the theory of evolution. Meteorite strikes, variation in solar output, gamma ray bursts etc. are simply external contingencies which could provide minor or catastrophic selection prerssure. However they are no different to other environmental changes which might provide selection pressures and result in the evolution 9or extinction)of some species.Using weary's logic, biologists need to be experts in meteorology and climate modelling to provide evidence of evolution in response to past climatic changes.Surprisingly (?) the critics of evolution don't consider it necessary to be expert in any relevent field in order to offer their expert refutation of the theory of evolution. Note the number of engineers and computer scientists who seem to parade their judgement as superior to biologists etc. on the validity of the theory of evolution.

Actually its Keplers laws Note the Kapital K beKause Kepler was his name.....And what "other law" do you have to apply?Keplers laws do just fine for working out orbital period of an observed body.....Oh and explain what you meant by Kuiper belt objects being binary....Because you keep on making some pretty odd statements, I'm giving you the chance to explain them but it makes it look like your grasp of cosmology is a severely limiting factor in this discussion....[This message has been edited by joz, 08-28-2003]

messenjaH the Only reason you think Evolution is wrong is Because you think the Bible is right (a book that has 0 facts to back it up)
We on the Other hand think about data and facts in order to figure it out. We don't try to make it work for something else. You need to learn this is not a conspiracy! If anyone found evidence that falsified Evolution Believe me they wouldn't hide it![This message has been edited by DC85, 08-28-2003]

This would be a good point except that it assumes scientists are in the main atheists. They aren't. The majority of scientists believe in God and often belong to one mainstream religion or another. Evolution isn't the product of atheists but of scientists.That being said, atheists are represented among scientists to a far greater extent than in the general population.--Percy

• Not a greater extent, but a greater proportion of scientists to the population in whole(comparatively)

------------------

Hi Percy,Didn't you post some statistics on this once? I'd be interested in seeing that post again...you don't happen to remember the thread do you?------------------
Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

wj:I totally agree with your main point, and apologize for the little side comment. It was in response to "I can only think of one...". I completely agree that while various extrinsic factors provide facinating possibilities for the why's of the major radiation events, the how's of evolutionary theory don't rest on their existence. I also share your frustration with creationist demands that evo biologists know every single detail of every single discipline that may have some bearing - even very peripherally - on biology.I think it derives from the pablum spoon-fed them from AiG, etc. "After all," they think, "since the brilliant creation scientists at AiG, etc, can explain life, the universe and everything in easily digested itty bitty bites that 'completely destroy' the darwinian heresy, if every single evo can't do the same in refutation, then OBVIOUSLY there IS no refutation and the Bible is true." Of course, what they don't realize is that whereas it's fairly easy to state "what" scientists think is the best explanation, the "why they think that" is ever-so-much harder. And they've been taught not to accept what scientists say "without proof". Proof, I might add, that they are in general unequipped to either understand or evaluate.I really don't know what to do about this - or how to approach it most times. I think this is one of the key reasons more scientists don't get involved - they don't want to come across as an idiot when some creationist in a debate on the fossil record pops off with "Explain how the Big Bang could come from nothing, then." Argument by sound-bite is very effective when the answer requires a book-length response...