Do you have any evidence for scientific…

[1213]

...claims like:
- All species have evolved from simple organism
- Continents really move because convection
- Earth revolves around the sun
- Earth is over 4 billion years old
- Humans have existed over 100 000 years

This thread is the place to provide evidence for these things, or admit that you have none and retract your unsupported assertions.

Only verifiable physical or mathematical evidence is acceptable. And please no great assumptions, I think they are not evidence.

If you are not able to provide evidence for those ordinary claims, I am also pleased if you can say one thing for example that you think have good evidence and tell what the evidence is.

[Bust Nak]

Scientific evidence for these claims:

All species have evolved from simple organism - Double nested hierarchy of life.
Continents really move because convection - "Ring of fire."
Earth revolves around the sun - The orbit of other planets.
Earth is over 4 billion years old - Dating of meteorite.
Humans have existed over 100 000 years - Dating of human fossils.

[McCulloch]

Do you have any evidence for scientific claims like Earth revolves around the sun.

This thread is the place to provide evidence for these things, or admit that you have none and retract your unsupported assertions.

Only verifiable physical or mathematical evidence is acceptable. And please no great assumptions, I think they are not evidence.

If you are not able to provide evidence for those ordinary claims, I am also pleased if you can say one thing for example that you think have good evidence and tell what the evidence is.

1. The sun is approximately 1.5×10⁸ km from Earth.
2. The sun has a diameter of about 1,392,684 km. This can be validated using simple mathematics, the distance and the angular size of the sun. Or you can get a more accurate measure as described by Emilio, M.; Kuhn, J. R.; Bush, R. I.; Scholl, I. F. (2012). "Measuring the Solar Radius from Space during the 2003 and 2006 Mercury Transits". The Astrophysical Journal 750 (2): 135. arXiv:1203.4898. Bibcode:2012ApJ...750..135E. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/135.
3. The earth has a diameter of about 12,742 km. Since the Earth's circumference has been measured, it is again simple mathematics to get the diameter.
4. From and [c], the Sun is more than 1.3 million times the volume of the Earth.
5. The earth has a mass of about 6×10²⁴ kg
6. The Sun has a mass of about 2×10³⁰ kg; that is about 333,000 × Earth's mass.
7. In the absence of any other forces, when a really big object and a relatively small object are in motion, it is the small one that is affected by the larger one, not the other way around. Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.
8. No other force has been detected large enough to affect the interaction of the Earth and Sun.
9. Therefore, it is the Earth that orbits the Sun, not the other way around.

These facts have been validated by various means. If you wish to challenge any particular fact, then we can delve further into it. The exact numbers are not required for this proof, it is sufficient that the Sun is a really long distance away and it is really really bigger and heavier than Earth.

[1213]

Scientific evidence for these claims:

All species have evolved from simple organism - Double nested hierarchy of life.
Continents really move because convection - "Ring of fire."
Earth revolves around the sun - The orbit of other planets.
Earth is over 4 billion years old - Dating of meteorite.
Humans have existed over 100 000 years - Dating of human fossils.

And how are those evidence?

In my opinion you could as well say “Flying Spaghetti monster�.

[1213]

1. The sun is approximately 1.5×10⁸ km from Earth.

Sorry if I just didn’t get it, but what was the evidence for that distance?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 5 by 1213]

The sun is approximately 1.5×10⁸ km from Earth.

We know this essentially from Geometry.

Now… how do we know the distance to the Sun so accurately? Geometry. Early astronomers calculated the angles to Mars during opposite points of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. This method allowed them to calculate that the Earth was about 140 million km from the Sun. A more accurate measurement was made in 1761 when Venus made a rare transit in front of the Sun. During the most recent transit of Venus in 2004, astronomers from around the world worked together to refine the current value for the distance to the Sun.
http://www.universetoday.com/18043/dist ... z2vxzzYkir

Modern astronomers can use radar and laser pulses to calculate the distance to objects in the Solar System. For example, they fire an intense beam of radio waves at a distant object, like Mercury, and then calculate how long it takes for the waves to bounce off the planet and return to Earth. Since the speed of light is well known, the return travel time tells you how far away the planet is.
http://www.universetoday.com/14437/how- ... z2vy0e5EAx

In 1672, Giovanni Cassini used a method involving parallax, or angular difference, to find the distance to Mars and at the same time figured out the distance to the sun. He sent a colleague, Jean Richer, to French Guiana while he stayed in Paris. They took measurements of the position of Mars relative to background stars, and triangulated those measurements with the known distance between Paris and French Guiana. Once they had the distance to Mars, they could also calculate the distance to the sun. Since his methods were more scientific, he usually gets the credit.
http://www.space.com/17081-how-far-is-e ... e-sun.html

[Divine Insight]

This thread is the place to provide evidence for these things, or admit that you have none and retract your unsupported assertions.

I personally have no need for any of these things to be true. Therefore I see no relevance to why I would need to assert that they are true.

Only verifiable physical or mathematical evidence is acceptable. And please no great assumptions, I think they are not evidence.

Over the course of my life I have attended countless classes on mathematics and physics. In fact, well over 16 years of college-level courses alone. Everything I have seen during that time both mathematically and physically correspond to these results and work out perfectly. And I have personally worked out much of the math precisely because I don't accept things without having verified them myself.

The only thing in your list that I can't personally verify is the continental drift. And that's simply because I never took courses specifically on that topic and so I never really looked into that particular phenomenon that deeply.

My question would be to ask, "So what if it's wrong?" What would that mean? To me it would simply mean that we need to look for other causes. It's no big deal.

If you are not able to provide evidence for those ordinary claims, I am also pleased if you can say one thing for example that you think have good evidence and tell what the evidence is.

Well, since this is posted in Science and Religion I would like to make the following observations.

To begin with science is not in competition with religion. Although some religions do seem to buck up against science.

But what if the scientific knowledge that you have described is all wrong? Then what? Would this mean that perhaps some religion is then right?

Well, no, that wouldn't automatically follow.

Moreover, what religions would we have two chose from? There are basically two types of religions to choose from. Those that view reality in a mystical way. And those that view reality as having been created by some sort of human-like egotistical God character.

I hold that the religions that proclaim an egotistical human-like God character all are grossly flawed in dramatically self-inconsistent and self-contradictory ways.

The most popular of the egotistical-God religions were of course, Greek Mythology which most everyone accepts was indeed nothing more than mythology. And then the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

However, even many Jews demand that Judaism was never about an egoistical godhead described in the Torah, but rather they view that as an abstraction and metaphor for something more mystical. (I'll explain the mystical religious views shorty).

In the meantime Christianity and Islam are based upon dogma that described a jealous-God who is vengeful and had more negative personality disorders than an ill-behaved teenager, and wife and child abuser, and a slave task master all rolled into one.

In short, the dogma of these religions blatantly contradict the very idea of an all-wise, intelligent, and benevolent God. So these religious rule themselves out by their own self-contradictory dogma (no science required to dismiss them)

So when you ask:

I am also pleased if you can say one thing for example that you think have good evidence and tell what the evidence is.

IMHO the evidence against Christianity and Islam is overwhelming and decisive. And this evidence comes directly from the dogma of these religions themselves. It is simply impossible for the Gods describe in these dogmas to be all-wise, intelligent, or benevolent. So these religions are overwhelming evidence against their own claims to be about a supposedly all-wise, intelligent, or benevolent God.

Finally if we move forward to the mystical religions, like Taoism, and other Eastern Mystical philosophies we see the "God" entity being portrayed in a far more abstract and mystical sense where it is not automatically self-defeating or self-contradictory.

However, coming then full-circle back to science, it become irrelevant. There is no conflict between these mystical religions and science. It doesn't matter whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice-versa. It doesn't how the continents might move. It doesn't matter how long humans have been around or how old the earth is. None of that matters because the mystical religions don't demand any specific history. In the mystical religions life is but a dream in the mind of a supreme consciousness. How the dream came to be or how long the dream has been going on is anyone's guess. Mysticism does not depend upon science. And science can be whatever it is without conflicting with the dream.

So in the case of Mysticism we have a religion that is not in competition with science in any way. Science would be right, science could be wrong. It doesn't matter.

In the case of religions like Christianity and Islam, it also doesn't matter whether science is right or wrong. Those religions are clearly self-contradictory and fail on their own self-contradictions anyway.

So even if science is currently wrong that wouldn't make either Christianity or Islam true. They would still be self-failed religions. No science is required to dismiss them as being illogical and self-contradictory mythologies.

[Nilloc James]

Scientific evidence for these claims:

All species have evolved from simple organism - Double nested hierarchy of life.
Continents really move because convection - "Ring of fire."
Earth revolves around the sun - The orbit of other planets.
Earth is over 4 billion years old - Dating of meteorite.
Humans have existed over 100 000 years - Dating of human fossils.

And how are those evidence?

In my opinion you could as well say “Flying Spaghetti monster�.

A failure to understand does not show the evidence is invalid.

My friend walked me trough a difficult mathematical proof the other day, I didnt understand it: does that mean it is false?

[Divine Insight]

...claims like:
- All species have evolved from simple organism
- Continents really move because convection
- Earth revolves around the sun
- Earth is over 4 billion years old
- Humans have existed over 100 000 years

This thread is the place to provide evidence for these things, or admit that you have none and retract your unsupported assertions.

By the way, it's not this simple anyway. You can't demand that anyone retract their assertions as being "unsupported" unless you can actually offer a better case for a different worldview.

Clearly you can't, because if you could then that worldview would become the scientific standard.

The simple truth is that the things you have listed above simply have far more evidence than any other competing explanations.

The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun has been proven to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. For you to ask for evidence of this can only suggest that you have absolutely no education at all.

The responsibility for your education does not lie on the shoulders of others.

[1213]

Thank you for trying to give evidence.

Isn’t all that you gave just hearsay rumors? Only thing that I think can be seen as verifiable physical or mathematical evidence was that picture of Sun, Venus and Earth. And it shows that person must know two things to calculate the distance between Earth and Sun. However there is not really any physical or mathematical evidence that we really know the distance between Earth and Venus or Sun and Venus and therefore by that knowledge it is not possible to calculate distance between Sun and Earth.

But that geometrical idea is ok. If we want to use it, it should be used with dimensions that can be measured more reliable way. And I think best way to do so, would be that we measure distance between two points on earth and then from those points check the angle to the Sun at same time and then calculate the distance. (Even that method has problems that come visible at the latest, if the result does not fit to the modern understanding of the universe).