Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

Once again we are faced with the fact that you are volubly proud of the fact that you do not know jack about science. That being the case, why should anyone take your ravings seriously?

Just read what is written and stop making excuses for what science is actually saying. Guesses are not science......supposition is not evidence....interpretation of said evidence could be way off. How would you know?

I know, as a professional scientist, specifically an oceanographer (an integrative discipline), who, as part of his degree process demonstrated his graduate level competence in Geology, Chemistry, Physical Oceanography and Biological Oceanography. What, besides Bronze Age mythology have you ever demonstrated your competence in?

Which proves what? As far as I can tell through searches online, circumstantial evidence is all scientists have to base their conclusions on. Why do you not demand more than that?

You are playing word games with words that you do not even understand, this is akin to the "just a theory" lie that you folks like to spread. There are three kinds of evidence, Direct, Circumstantial and Inferential.

Direct evidence is based on personal knowledge or observation. If you saw someone walk down a beach, then that is direct evidence; their stroll is within your actual experience. Direct evidence is traditionally referred to as "eye witness." Instrument readings as well as photographs, video and audio recordings are also forms of direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is also a form of direct evidence of a fact when it reasonably infers the existence or nonexistence of another fact. Circumstantial evidence does not require direct observation. Let's say that no one saw the person in question walk down the beach, but they saw the car the subject arrived in, saw a set of tracks down the sand and the subject standing at the end of the tracks. In such a case one would say that there are three forms of circumstantial evidence of the subject's stroll.

Inferential evidence is composed of is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion. Circumstantial evidence is used to support a theory of a sequence of events. The sum total of multiple pieces of corroborating evidence, each piece being circumstantial alone, build an argument to support how a particular event happened. Thus the separate pieces of circumstantial evidence can be combined, and by inference, can determine that the subject drove to the beach, got out of the car and walked down the beach. Can one prove it? In rational and reasonable terms, yes. In irrational terms, no, since it is always possible that the entire scene was created by aliens or supernatural beings for no good purpose beyond fooling you. To reduce the possibility of such untoward events, one would hire one or more experts to check out every detail, compare the tacks to the subject's feet, look for increased sand winnowing from start to finish, check sand compression and the subjects' weight, etc. At each step the probability of the inference being wrong is reduced.

So ... just as you folks mistake the meaning of the word "theory" you also have no idea of what circumstantial actually means. Circumstantial evidence when combined with rational causality is transformed into inference. As we have seen, multiple concordant inferences are what scientific "fact" (knowledge that is not absolute .but that is beyond any rational doubt) is based on.

Based on those searches, I can reaffirm that you have nothing more than a belief system.....just like me.

Your claim is an empty one, unsupported by direct, circumstantial or inferential evidence.

If you have some sort of direct, circumstantial or inferential evidence that is other than your subjective, no better than Son of Sam's hallucinations ... please share it with us.

I looked up "tektites" and found the information interesting in view of what you said.....

"Because the chemical composition of most tektites is so similar to that of the earth's crustal rocks, early theories that they may be true meteorites can almost certainly be rejected....

Strawman alert! No one is claiming that tektites are meteorites.

One of the more durable theories about the origin of tektites is that they were formed from molten blobs that were splashed away from the site of impact when a meteorite struck the earth. Unfortunately for this theory, appropriate impact craters cannot be found to account fr all the earth's tektite fields....

Strawman alert! I do not need to account for all of Earth's tektite fields, just one, and that is know as the Chicxulub crater andn is located underneath the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico near the town of Chicxulub. It was formed by a large asteroid or comet about 6 miles in diameter, striking the Earth. The date of the impact coincides precisely with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary), slightly less than 66 million years ago.

In the last few years, it has been learned that some of the meteorites found on earth are almost certainly fragments of Mars, but where tektites come from is still an unresolved question.

I disagree, but am open to new data. In any case, that neither makes or breaks my arguments since is just one data strand of many.

Is there anything in science upon which there is agreement? The more I research, the more I realize how much disagreement there is. How do you know that what you believe is even true?

That is science's strength. We not only agree to disagree, we agree to work together to arrive at a new synthesis that satisfies the initially seemingly divergent views. Would that you religionists would do the same ... it would be a better and safer world if, rather than engaging in Lilliputian squabbles, you could follow science's model.

 

[Sapiens]

It is the high concentration of iridium found at Chicxulub site, Yucatan peninsula, is indication of meteor.

Iridium is found in a layer, worldwide, that dates consistently to the K–Pg boundary at slightly less than 66 million years ago.

 

[gnostic]

Iridium is found in a layer, worldwide, that dates consistently to the K–Pg boundary at slightly less than 66 million years ago.

As I have stated, I am no expert on the subject, because it was never covered.

So thank you for bringing more information about iridium to my attention.

As I understand it, volcanic eruptions can throw fine dust particles into the air, and the winds will blow those particles, travelling thousands of kilometres, landing in unexpected areas.

So I am not surprised layer of iridium could be found globally around this time boundary.

 

[Sapiens]

As I have stated, I am no expert on the subject, because it was never covered.

So thank you for bringing more information about iridium to my attention.

As I understand it, volcanic eruptions can throw fine dust particles into the air, and the winds will blow those particles, travelling thousands of kilometres, landing in unexpected areas.

So I am not surprised layer of iridium could be found globally around this time boundary.

It is an interesting area of study.

My opinion is that the impact was a stressor but that the root cause was "niche packing" due to previous long term ecological stability


Here's the first paragraph from wiki ( Alvarez hypothesis - Wikipedia ):

The Alvarez hypothesis posits that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and many other living things during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event was caused by the impact of a large asteroid on the Earth. Prior to 2013, it was commonly cited as having happened about 65 million years ago, but a 2013 paper by Renne et al. gave an updated value of 66 million years. Evidence indicates that the asteroid fell in the Yucatán Peninsula, at Chicxulub, Mexico. The hypothesis is named after the father-and-son team of scientists Luis and Walter Alvarez, who first suggested it in 1980.

 

[crowfeather]

What is inferred by the term 'accidental', anyway?
What does it matter 'why'?
What is to be gained by obtaining an explanation for anything?
Humans miss life, entirely, engaged as they are with an obsessive need to explain it, and to find out 'why'.

Standing back and studying this thing, prohibits one from ever being part of the thing being studied.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where is the proof that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs? That is pure speculation as well.

Proof again? There is apparently no middle ground for you between proof and pure speculation. It's one or the other. That kind of thinking is also a deal breaker.

Didn't you recently claim to be a learning animal? I find you unteachable. You insist on making the same mistake repeatedly, yet still want to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's not how it works.

Do you want to know what pure speculation looks like? Genesis is pure speculation. There's not a scintilla of evidence in its support, and mountains to contradict it.

The science of the event leading to the end of the Mesozoic is not pure speculation, and the supporting evidence is of more than one type - all in agreement.

Science differs from faith that way.

 

[gnostic]

Proof again? There is apparently no middle ground for you between proof and pure speculation. It's one or the other. That kind of thinking is also a deal breaker.

Didn't you recently claim to be a learning animal? I find you unteachable. You insist on making the same mistake repeatedly, yet still want to be taken seriously. Sorry, but that's not how it works.

Do you want to know what pure speculation looks like? Genesis is pure speculation. There's not a scintilla of evidence in its support, and mountains to contradict it.

The science of the event leading to the end of the Mesozoic is not pure speculation, and the supporting evidence is of more than one type - all in agreement.

Science differs from faith that way.

Deeje and I are both from Australia, and studying palaeontology in Australian universities would be tiny, and job places in this field would be very selective.

Most courses in biology or related to biology, don't even touch on the subject of fossils, eg like knowing how fossils formed, and they certainly wouldn't be studying dinosaurs. As I have been saying, palaeontology is a specialised fields, and not are involved in this field in Australia.

My geologist lecture and tutor never spoke of fossils, and it is wasn't found in our textbook.

My problem is that Deeje can claim she is right, not because she has studied biology or geology - which she clearly hasn't - that she has authority to dictate to us what is or isn't science, and what is or isn't evolution.

All her so-called "knowledge" come from creationist propaganda of Jehovah's Witnesses. JW is a religious sect or organisation, not a scientific one.

 

[Olinda]

Ah, the "evidence". What is the "evidence" exactly? .....

Sigh. Here is what I asked again:
This seems to be a dodge. What you said was
"Gotta love the language of proven science eh?"
So, since you claim to understand that while evolutionary science has overwhelming evidence, this is not proof. . . why did you mention "proven science"?
How does the usual ramble about evidence. . .science... persuasion answer the question?

O, I have addressed it many times.....go back and see. I love nothing better than to take the scientist's own words and demonstrate that there is nothing backing up what they say except conjecture and supposition masquerading as fact.

No, I asked why you do not address the lack of evidence against the ToE. I'm not looking for pretty pics and assertions of incredulity, nor even unsupported conspiracy theories, but something like. . . this experiment was performed. According to the ToE, we expected outcome A, but found something different. Do you see how that would call the ToE into question? Such evidence is completely missing.

If that is your understanding of the Creator, then no wonder you want nothing to do with him. The churches have a lot to answer for in creating the myths that have been fed to the masses.

Once again, you misunderstood. If the all-powerful Creator allowed us at this point to see lots of evidence for the ToE and none against, how is it the act of a just Father to threaten annihilation for those who accepted this evidence?

Creationism (6 literal day creation) is as big a fraud as is evolution.

Is this another conspiracy??

There is a reasonable explanation that excludes both scenarios.

Only if you find it reasonable to wave a red flag in the face of scientific investigation whenever it might contradict your understanding of the Bible at that time.

The undecided are probably a strong contingent in those numbers. They can make up their own minds as to whose argument resonates in their own heart.

"Probably". . . only if you want to believe so. I would be equally interested in a thread that claims to debunk any other scientific theory. In any case, science is about following the evidence, not belief.

 

[Deeje]

The question is, Deeje, are you willing to investigate the meteorite and Chicxulub crater a little further.

Yucatan Asteroid Didn't Kill Dinosaurs, Study Says

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Deeje and I are both from Australia, and studying palaeontology in Australian universities would be tiny, and job places in this field would be very selective.

Most courses in biology or related to biology, don't even touch on the subject of fossils, eg like knowing how fossils formed, and they certainly wouldn't be studying dinosaurs. As I have been saying, palaeontology is a specialised fields, and not are involved in this field in Australia.

My geologist lecture and tutor never spoke of fossils, and it is wasn't found in our textbook..

OK. Thanks for that.

That doesn't sound too different from my American experience. I never had a course in either geology or evolution, and didn't learn about fossils in my formal education. I didn't learn the divisions of geologic time, or about the geologic column. Life science was mostly taxonomy, defining life, the anatomy and physiology of the cell, etc.

My problem is that Deeje can claim she is right, not because she has studied biology or geology - which she clearly hasn't - that she has authority to dictate to us what is or isn't science, and what is or isn't evolution.

All her so-called "knowledge" come from creationist propaganda of Jehovah's Witnesses. JW is a religious sect or organisation, not a scientific one.

As you undoubtedly know, that's a pretty common phenomenon in these threads. Almost all creationists arguing against science are trained by apologists, not by science teachers. It surfaces almost immediately, perhaps in the form of "Evolution is only a theory" - something nobody trained in the sciences would say - or some reference to micro- versus macro-evolution, another creationist shibboleth.

The arguments are very much alike, the result of a media echo chamber effect wherein a handful of ideas are repeated in a relatively closed community (hence the chamber and its bouncing echoes) until most participants are indoctrinated similarly and post similarly.

 

[gnostic]

As you undoubtedly know, that's a pretty common phenomenon in these threads. Almost all creationists arguing against science are trained by apologists, not by science teachers. It surfaces almost immediately, perhaps in the form of "Evolution is only a theory" - something nobody trained in the sciences would say - or some reference to micro- versus macro-evolution, another creationist shibboleth.

The arguments are very much alike, the result of a media echo chamber effect wherein a handful of ideas are repeated in a relatively closed community (hence the chamber and its bouncing echoes) until most participants are indoctrinated similarly and post similarly.

What I find amusing that she tried to distance herself and JW, by claiming JW are not like rest of Christianity and also distance herself and JW from the typical creationism. Deeje claimed she followed Intelligent Design, not creationism.

But I find very little differences between creationism and ID. Most of her arguments and her tactics are the same as those who follow creationism. And she believe that the creationism literally happened as Genesis say...well, for the most part, at her version of interpretation.

If her argument and tactics are almost the same as the creationists', using the same scriptures as they do, often quoting the same biased creationists' webpages, I don't see how she can say she is "not a creationist".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would be equally interested in a thread that claims to debunk any other scientific theory.

Yeah, you don't see a lot of religious apologists attacking the science of celestial mechanics or that of electrical circuits.

I guess that only scientists contradicting faith-based beliefs don't know how to do science properly and need to be straightened out by the believers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I find amusing that she tried to distance herself and JW, by claiming JW are not like rest of Christianity and also distance herself and JW from the typical creationism. Deeje claimed she followed Intelligent Design, not creationism.

But I find very little differences between creationism and ID. Most of her arguments and her tactics are the same as those who follow creationism. And she believe that the creationism literally happened as Genesis say...well, for the most part, at her version of interpretation.

If her argument and tactics are almost the same as the creationists', using the same scriptures as they do, often quoting the same biased creationists' webpages, I don't see how she can say she is "not a creationist".

Agree - the two are interchangeable. Creationists need an intelligent designer and intelligent design is creation by a conscious agent. The creation story in Genesis describes an act of intelligent design.

And of course Deeje is a creationist - at least in the sense that most people mean the word. I wasn't aware that she denied it. I would expect her to announce it proudly. The only alternative is to embrace the naturalistic hypotheses, abiogenesis and biological evolution.

Maybe she can elaborate for us why she denies being a creationist - what that word means to her that she denies applies to her.

 

[Sapiens]

What is inferred by the term 'accidental', anyway?

"Accidental" in this context means without selection.

What does it matter 'why'?

Aside from the obvious "the examined life is not worth living" there is the reality that the "why" provides knowledge that when properly applied leads to a better life.

What is to be gained by obtaining an explanation for anything?

Better integration life as it actually exists.

Humans miss life, entirely, engaged as they are with an obsessive need to explain it, and to find out 'why'.

Hardly. My scientific pursuits have made me much more engaged with all of life, often aspects of life that non-scientists are ignorant of and miss entirely.

Standing back and studying this thing, prohibits one from ever being part of the thing being studied.

No, standing back and studying something shows the path to better fit into the thing being studied.

Deeje and I are both from Australia, and studying palaeontology in Australian universities would be tiny, and job places in this field would be very selective.

Most courses in biology or related to biology, don't even touch on the subject of fossils, eg like knowing how fossils formed, and they certainly wouldn't be studying dinosaurs. As I have been saying, palaeontology is a specialised fields, and not are involved in this field in Australia.

My geologist lecture and tutor never spoke of fossils, and it is wasn't found in our textbook.

Yet some of my most interesting fossils are casts of Australian finds like Thylacaleo and Diprotodon.

 

[Sapiens]

Yucatan Asteroid Didn't Kill Dinosaurs, Study Says

All that study is saying is that it was a different asteroid that did the deed, so what is your point?

 

[crowfeather]

You can stand back from life and study it, as if it were a thing, or you can merge with it, become it, and live.
Never can you do both.

 

[Sapiens]

You can stand back from life and study it, as if it were a thing, or you can merge with it, become it, and live.
Never can you do both.

Speak for yourself. I can, and I do.

 

[crowfeather]

Corpses imagine that they live.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps your corpse will, however I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt, that my corpse will simply rot.

 

[crowfeather]

Were you living, you would easily have recognized the metaphor. Ghosts, zombies, shades, phantoms, all move about, feeling important. Yet none live.