OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:56) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20) | | Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16) | To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts |
sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.
| Quote | | earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again |
Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon? It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth. It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon. Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more. Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly. [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against. The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above. Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]
Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL] The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.
Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it. Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.
Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.
Now that that is out of the way.
| Quote | | If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts |
Assertion. Cite evidence.
Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense. |
Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism
I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws
Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..
I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life |
No... can you read?
It admitted that uniformatarianism is a concept that is used in geology AND natural philosophy. As such, it is not completely spelled out in cosmology, other than its role in natural philosophy.
However, what you fail to grasp, is that the two concepts are not the same. You have also not objected to any of the examples I provided.
I sent you the Wikipedia links, because they are pretty good for your level of understanding, which is seriously lacking.
You still haven't touched on anything on my list, except the definition of robust.
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....siensis
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
