Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2012, 12:23 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 11:36 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Not Egor's sock puppet...Lumi's. Tongue

No, Lumi is polite and thoughtful. This guy has Egor-like ego delusion and aggressive rudeness.

Yeah, but even in Egor's delusionness, at least he's coherent. Hobo

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
21-08-2012, 12:29 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 12:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 12:15 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  read the thread opener;

do you comprehend them words?


ie.... your opinion warrants dismissal!

The OP was so full of woo and misunderstanding as to be laughable.

You seem to agree with the OP.

my opening post shared that i thought the op was crap but that underlying thread title, does have merit (kind of sick but the accepted paradigm (reductionary (planck)) is wrong)

I dont mean, science is wrong but that to use the accepted physics, to the molecular level, there is no method of defining an 'evolution' of a living process.

hint: If is was available, it would be in schools, already!

and i will BOLDLY claim the reason is, that the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how life exists.

Funny part is, the comprehension is practically a 'reversal of nature' to a mind comprehension.

For example: to tap the surface of a pond, envision the waves propagating across the surface (to equilibrate), but do you remember that as the waves are getting smaller (per se) the amount of mass now entangled is increasing.

Just a shift of observing.

dont be offended!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 01:06 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 12:23 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Yeah, but even in Egor's delusionness, at least he's coherent. Hobo

(16-07-2012 01:45 PM)Egor Wrote:  Like I said, I have no faith any longer. I know there is no god out there. I am utterly alone, and I am the circle.

So are you.

(16-07-2012 01:45 PM)Egor Wrote:  I don't personally give a shit that you practice the religion of atheism; I don't care that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. You have to believe whatever you are supposed to believe.

I believe I am the circle, and I have no further comment about the existence of God.

What was that about coherent again? Hobo

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-08-2012, 01:36 PM
Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 01:06 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 12:23 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Yeah, but even in Egor's delusionness, at least he's coherent. Hobo

(16-07-2012 01:45 PM)Egor Wrote:  Like I said, I have no faith any longer. I know there is no god out there. I am utterly alone, and I am the circle.

So are you.

(16-07-2012 01:45 PM)Egor Wrote:  I don't personally give a shit that you practice the religion of atheism; I don't care that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. You have to believe whatever you are supposed to believe.

I believe I am the circle, and I have no further comment about the existence of God.

What was that about coherent again? Hobo

He's a circle. What's not to understand? Tongue

Didn't you watch The Lion King? The circle of life is well explained there.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
21-08-2012, 05:44 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 01:36 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 01:06 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What was that about coherent again? Hobo

He's a circle. What's not to understand? Tongue

Didn't you watch The Lion King? The circle of life is well explained there.

Akuna matata, amigo. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-08-2012, 08:29 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 12:29 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 12:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  The OP was so full of woo and misunderstanding as to be laughable.

You seem to agree with the OP.

my opening post shared that i thought the op was crap but that underlying thread title, does have merit (kind of sick but the accepted paradigm (reductionary (planck)) is wrong)

I dont mean, science is wrong but that to use the accepted physics, to the molecular level, there is no method of defining an 'evolution' of a living process.

hint: If is was available, it would be in schools, already!

and i will BOLDLY claim the reason is, that the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how life exists.

Funny part is, the comprehension is practically a 'reversal of nature' to a mind comprehension.

For example: to tap the surface of a pond, envision the waves propagating across the surface (to equilibrate), but do you remember that as the waves are getting smaller (per se) the amount of mass now entangled is increasing.

Just a shift of observing.

dont be offended!
You seem to not have a basic understanding of physics, or even science for that matter... either that or you need to brush up on your sentence structure skills.

Aim: To find out whether you are trolling or just misinformed.
Hypothesis: You are misinformed.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like robotworld's post
22-08-2012, 07:23 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(21-08-2012 08:29 PM)robotworld Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 12:29 PM)Bishadi Wrote:  my opening post shared that i thought the op was crap but that underlying thread title, does have merit (kind of sick but the accepted paradigm (reductionary (planck)) is wrong)

I dont mean, science is wrong but that to use the accepted physics, to the molecular level, there is no method of defining an 'evolution' of a living process.

hint: If is was available, it would be in schools, already!

and i will BOLDLY claim the reason is, that the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how life exists.

Funny part is, the comprehension is practically a 'reversal of nature' to a mind comprehension.

For example: to tap the surface of a pond, envision the waves propagating across the surface (to equilibrate), but do you remember that as the waves are getting smaller (per se) the amount of mass now entangled is increasing.

Just a shift of observing.

dont be offended!
You seem to not have a basic understanding of physics, or even science for that matter... either that or you need to brush up on your sentence structure skills.

what is your question?

if you think that because i dont accept the current paradigm, that i am uneducated in physics, then your just stupid!

call up Milo Wolff and ask him who spent thanksgiving of 06 will him. Milo's comment to me was, 'im too old to have to start over'

Milo is who picked up from feynman.
Quote:Aim: To find out whether you are trolling or just misinformed.
Hypothesis: You are misinformed.
that's the difference of me and many.

before i had hair on my yahoos (over 3 decades back) i was already playing with the field equations.

I was 16 when i figured out the current methodology of defining nature was incorrect, how old were you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 07:23 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  I was 16 when i figured out the current methodology of defining nature was incorrect, how old were you?

That's nice... and irrelevant...

Frankie de la Cunto
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 07:51 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 07:25 AM)frankiej Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:23 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  I was 16 when i figured out the current methodology of defining nature was incorrect, how old were you?

That's nice... and irrelevant...

the relevance is, i have done the homework.

who else has?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:25 AM)frankiej Wrote:  That's nice... and irrelevant...

the relevance is, i have done the homework.

who else has?

You're a funny troll.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: