Freethought & Rationalism Archive

10-07-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy:
I find this thread slightly amazing.

zzang, you say that you doubt both evolution and creation pretty much equally, if I've read it right. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence discovered, evaluated and indeed, fought over during peer review, by highly trained and dedicated people, in favor of the ToE, what then, is your hypothesis?

As I have already stated in this thread, I don't have one.

Quote:

I don't 'believe' in the Theory of Evolution, myself. I merely accept it as the best explanation for the data produced thus far. If you or anyone can come up with reliable evidence supporting anything better, I'll drop the ToE in the compost like yesterday's fishbones. But that evidence would have to be very damned good to counter what is currently before us.
doov

I don't have a better explanation, but I don't think evolution sufficiently explains the data.

10-07-2002, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Ok am I missing something here? I have absolutely no idea what zzang is talking about.

Zzang - are you saying that somehow the decay of the magnetic field somehow would have interfered with random mutation or natural selection? In other words, it affected the genetic changes of a population? Do you have any papers or websites supporting this view? Thanks in advance,

All I'm saying is that if the magnetic field was too strong in the past, then the Earth wouldn't be able to sustain life (at least not most life we know of).

Ought Naught · 10-07-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:
All I'm saying is that if the magnetic field was too strong in the past, then the Earth wouldn't be able to sustain life (at least not most life we know of).

*LOL* Okay, he's definitely a troll.

10-07-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neruda:
Like scigirl, I'm a little lost with respect to zzang's last post as well. All I really want to do is point out that he obviously doesn't do much research or else maybe he would have a better idea of how old the earth was and based on what evidence. (Trillions of years old for all we know? What an obtuse statement!)

Oh, so because I didn't say 4.6 billion years it means I don't do my research? You know just because you do research doesn't mean that you end up agreeing with everything you research.

Quote:

To me, it doesn't seem like zzang is at all interested in researching science, and instead has become the only atheist alive to take creationist arguments seriously. What an odd claim to fame that is...

And if you come back saying that you don't take their arguments seriously, well then why the hell are you so hung up about this stupid magnetic field argument?

My argument concerning the magnetic field isn't the same as any creationist argument.

scigirl · 10-07-2002, 08:57 AM

Quote:

All I'm saying is that if the magnetic field was too strong in the past, then the Earth wouldn't be able to sustain life (at least not most life we know of).

But. . . zzang, we know the earth is old due to very good physics evidence, and we know the earth has life. Can't we do a little "reverse logic" and assume that obviously the earth's magnetic field was just dandy for life to arise and sustain itself?

scigirl

10-07-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong. There is no double standard.

Thats not true.

Quote:

Yes, and you were shown to be wrong about that too. We have a 'geologic record'
of the earth's magnetic field going back billions of years, the specifics of which
totally contradict the decaying-since-creation hypothesis.

Reversals in polarity don't contradict that hypothesis, and they certainly don't support the oscillating field hypothesis.

quote:

But that doesn't have anything to do with the age of the Earth! The
Earth could be trillions of years old for all we know. . .

Quote:

No, it couldn't. There are good reasons to believe that the earth is not trillions of
years old.

You mean there aren't good reasons to believe the Earth is trillions, just like there aren't good reason to believe its 4.6 billion or 6000.

Quote:

Nope. You are/were ignorant beacause you are/were unaware of crucial information
(such as data on the paleointensity of the GM field), and were making statements
which are simply contrary to fact (such as your claim that all we know are that the
field has reversed and that it is losing energy).

Uhm the intensity in the rocks can change regardless of the Earth's magnetic field, so I would hardly consider that to be a reliable source as to the intensity in the past.

10-07-2002, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Guys, guys... zzang is merely a troll. Evidence: the glee with which he jumped to arguing, rather than address the replies / refutations Nat and I gave to matters he raised.

DNFTT.

Oolon

Sorry but when your 'refutations' are accompanied by insults and fabrications concerning things I have said/believe I get side-tracked, but since you feel that way then this is the last time I feed you Oolon.

10-07-2002, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

But. . . zzang, we know the earth is old due to very good physics evidence, and we know the earth has life. Can't we do a little "reverse logic" and assume that obviously the earth's magnetic field was just dandy for life to arise and sustain itself?

scigirl

Yes you can, but eventually you'd reach a point where life as we know it wouldn't be compatible with the magnetic field strength.

scigirl · 10-07-2002, 09:20 AM

zzang,

once again I ask. . . what is your point? Do you have any papers or references that discuss how the earth's magnetic field affects life? That would be very helpful (if they were provided earlier please let me know)

thanks

sci

Neruda · 10-07-2002, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by zzang:
I don't have a better explanation, but I don't think evolution sufficiently explains the data.

give us one good reason why and maybe we'll take you more seriously.

Quote:

Oh, so because I didn't say 4.6 billion years it means I don't do my research? You know just because you do research doesn't mean that you end up agreeing with everything you research.

explain to us why you doubt our current numbers and again, maybe we'll take you more seriously. But when you say things like "it could be trillions of years old for all we know," that goes against everything we do know and nothing suggests such an enourmous figure. even if you were simply exagerating, you're not exactly radiating scientific knowledge right now.

Quote:

Thats not true.

care to back that up, or is that all you've got?

Quote:

You mean there aren't good reasons to believe the Earth is trillions, just like there aren't good reason to believe its 4.6 billion or 6000.

there are *very* good reasons for believing it's 4.6 billion years old, or somewhere close to that figure.

Go home, troll! We grow tired of your presence!

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 09:20 AM	#79
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	zzang, once again I ask. . . what is your point? Do you have any papers or references that discuss how the earth's magnetic field affects life? That would be very helpful (if they were provided earlier please let me know) thanks sci

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.