Those would be the folks on the "B" ark. Along with all the Telephone Sanitizers and Advertising Executives and Management Consultants.
Posted on 07/03/2003 10:22:13 AM PDT by RightWhale
nothing more
(see tag)
What tag? Is this is a new tact: refer to a cite that does not exist, rather than allow me to examine and existing, but bogus cite and it's irrelevant contents?
How clever. Since you are back, and since you apparently don't want to discuss anything relevant to this thread, let's just continue where we left off:
Could you supply us with a cite, or part of cite, not written by you, that backs up your contention that Darwin committed plagarism? It would seem to me to be an event of historical note, yet I don't find it in my regular history books.
I'm not sure I follow. Did Darwin make mention of earthlike planets? It would seem to me, if anything, evolution might predict whether life would arise on these other planets- not predict the existence of the planets themselves.
What are you talking about? I have not a clue.
I was responding to one of your posts:
btw - does evolution further or support conservatism?
I don't have a clue what other thread you're referencing. I simply wanted to know why you asked this question. That's your post number 55.
1 year.
Those would be the folks on the "B" ark. Along with all the Telephone Sanitizers and Advertising Executives and Management Consultants.
The idea that matter rearranges itself and produces new things, perhaps of greater organization is evolution, a concept, a set of procedures. It might be applied to try to organize knowledge of how life arose and how the unnumbered varieties of life came to be. It can also be applied to how the very same protons and quarks that were once just gas became parts of stars and parts of planets and parts of simple chemicals and parts of extremely large molecules and parts of microbial cells and parts of our own bodies and parts of things we make to support our culture and society. In order of complexity.
This is not how I learned evolution in school. What I learned in school never talked about the creation of the universe or galaxies or planetary systems. It confined itself to dealing with how life- as we experience it here on Earth- arose on this particular planet. I never recall Darwin making mention of how it all inevitably started. Maybe I was asleep in class that day?
Fascinating, however, I do not detect in this cite any point relevant to either question on the table. Where, in this cite, is it demonstrated that, because some marxists and fascists believe in darwinian theory, or find darwinian theory "handy". That that somehow therefore scientifically invalidates Darwinism? It plainly does not. The social consequences of adopting a theory are not a logically relevant measure of it's truth or falsehood.
Assuming you were addressing the other conversation: where, in this cite, is it demonstrated that Darwin was a plagarist? Again, I see no nothing remotely relevant to the point in at hand.
Oh, and just to keep the table up to date--what was the (tag) to which you previously referred. Is this it? If so, how is this cite relevant to your suggestion that I am lying (which I am not, merely speculating) as to why you provoke some threads out of existence and leave others stand?
Oh, and while you are at it--could you supply that cite you accidently overlooked supplying in the previous discussion as to where I offered some sort of rude epithet toward the bible? I take that one sort of personally, and would very much like you to cite a demonstration that you are not simply making it up.
I was looking for the StarTrek Warp speed calulator... :)
I think I heard somewhere that the total mass of the asteroid belt is only about 1/4th of a planet, debunking the "exploded planet" theory.
Another interesting theory is Bode's Law, that the orbital distances of the planets are roughly 4+3x2^n where n is the position in the sequence (divide by 10 to get Astronomical Units). Mercury (4)/10 = .4AU (36MM miles), Venus (4+3x2^0)/10 = .7AU (67MM), Earth (4+3x2^1)/10 = 1AU (93MM), Mars (4+3x2^2)/10 = 1.6AU (141MM), Ceres (4+3x2^3)/10 = 2.8AU, Jupiter (4+3x2^4)/10 = 5.2AU (483MM), Saturn (4+3x2^5)/10 = 10AU(886MM), Uranus (4+3x2^6)/10 = 19.6AU(1,783MM). The "law" breaks down after Uranus. The intersting thing is that the asteroid belt fits right where the next planet ought to be.
-PJ
Since there's not much of a way to guess what size the planet in question originally was, or how it exploded, and therefore, how much of its mass would rightfully be expected to remain in a matching orbit, that seems like a rather doubtful datapoint to me.
You have to fudge a little to make Bode's law fit our solar system. Not much, but enough to leave room for doubt. Their are other possible explanations that haven't been exhausted yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.