Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 07:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  the relevance is, i have done the homework.

who else has?

You're a funny troll.

been waiting for the pukes to show up.

aye.... the local peanut gallery
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 08:12 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 08:07 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You're a funny troll.

been waiting for the pukes to show up.

aye.... the local peanut gallery

I mean really, you a super funny troll.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
22-08-2012, 09:42 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 08:07 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:58 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You're a funny troll.

been waiting for the pukes to show up.

aye.... the local peanut gallery

Please provide links to your published research papers.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 07:23 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 08:29 PM)robotworld Wrote:  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?

Well, let's start with the example you gave:

"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."

My second point is proven, that you really need to improve your English for us to better understand what you are talking about. Also, there's a simpler explanation to why the waves get smaller without invoking quantum entanglement. Loss of energy to the environment as the waves propagate. The amplitude of the wave will not change under ideal conditions. But I'm curious, why do you invoke quantum entanglement?

If you have a new paradigm for everyone to better understand nature, then by all means work with other people or even by yourself to publish a research paper. If you intend to share such a theory with us, please present it in a coherent yet easily understandable manner.

I still believe that you have the ability to make a well reasoned and coherent argument, thus the time taken to write all these.

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
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
24-08-2012, 02:27 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?

Perhaps you have--I won't concede that yet until you provide coherent arguments and evidence to that affect. Your postings have not coherently argued any point whatsoever.

Quote:Biological processes are not defined within physics to the molecular level.

Other than you, says who? Genes are molecules, are they not?

Quote:and if the reductionary scope is held, then YES 'that' science does disprove an 'evolution' (by environment).

You seem to have some missing context here (translation, WTF are you talking about?).

Quote:So the thread, although ignorant renders a conundrum; religious wingnuts can use science (the physics/math) to discount an 'evolution' by trying to define the 'process' to the molecular level.

Don't tell me you buy that Dembski BS. By the way, your sentence structure is confusing to read and seems filled with peculiar terminology that I can only imagine sounds natural to you. At least to me, you seem to be using jargon that one picks up in cultish wingnut enclaves.

Quote:ie.... the current paradigm (walking the planck) is wrong.

See what I mean? Well, no, you probably don't. What particular point about Max Planck are you trying to advance?

Quote: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.

Again, what precisely is it that you are arguing here? You seem to be using the wrong language to argue your points. We have a method defining evolution of a living process--it is the Theory of Natural Selection. I think you are ACTUALLY trying to say that you do not find convincing evidence for life to arise through natural processes. And on that point, any serious scientist would concede that we do not YET have sufficient evidence for how that might occur. Scientists have discovered a process where two the the DNA base pairs form under conditions that were available in early earth. It is not a complete body of evidence showing a path to life's origin. There is no evidence contrary to the possibility that life originated through natural processes, so we keep looking.

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

Huh? What does this mean?

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

More wooo

Quote: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.

That's very nice. So what?

Quote:I was 16 when i figured out the current methodology of defining nature was incorrect, how old were you?

That's very nice. So what current methodology of defining nature have you debunked, eh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
24-08-2012, 06:48 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
I was not aware anyone has ever tried to define life at the molecular level. We have defined it down to the cellular level but beyond that appears to be dictated by chemical and physical processes. The point however is that the cellular level imposes some control on these molecular functions and interactions. Can I strip an electron from an electron donor and transplant it on an electron receptor? I do it all the time as I respire. Is the process of electron transfer life? Hardly. So, saying that the OP has any merit in his statement because you can get to a small enough level that the definition of life breaks down is erroneous. That is like saying that the definition of planet doesn't make sense from the scale of a city. Absurd.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-08-2012, 06:54 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(22-08-2012 09:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 08:07 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  been waiting for the pukes to show up.

aye.... the local peanut gallery

Please provide links to your published research papers.

no............................!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 07:09 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(24-08-2012 02:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  Biological processes are not defined within physics to the molecular level.

Other than you, says who? Genes are molecules, are they not?
sure they are.

and go over the physics of both the bending of the strand (which wavelength is causing it)?

and then the catalyst to divide, and translate the dna/rna......could you please put that to physics at the reaction point? (describe the energy cyle, please)

(24-08-2012 02:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  and if the reductionary scope is held, then YES 'that' science does disprove an 'evolution' (by environment).

You seem to have some missing context here (translation, WTF are you talking about?).

oops.

That deserves a 'fuck you punk'. (sorry, but that is the language of this forum)

the FACT is, when you can render the process to the molecule/energy-mass exchange, which will reveal the golden ratio of the energy progression, then you will be possibly, representing an evolution to the molecular scale of a living process.

I love the progression of living process but idiots have a hard time admitting that 'currently' the math does not exist for the such within the educational community.

compare a citrus cycle to the combining of the p680; to the molecular scale.

Then come back and argue.


(24-08-2012 02:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  ie.... the current paradigm (walking the planck) is wrong.

See what I mean? Well, no, you probably don't. What particular point about Max Planck are you trying to advance?

have you ever read the paper that underwrite the existing paradigm?

http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Pl...-1901.html

let me know when you have read that. (it's in english so you have no excuse)




(24-08-2012 02:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 07:51 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  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.

Again, what precisely is it that you are arguing here? You seem to be using the wrong language to argue your points. We have a method defining evolution of a living process--it is the Theory of Natural Selection. I think you are ACTUALLY trying to say that you do not find convincing evidence for life to arise through natural processes. And on that point, any serious scientist would concede that we do not YET have sufficient evidence for how that might occur. Scientists have discovered a process where two the the DNA base pairs form under conditions that were available in early earth. It is not a complete body of evidence showing a path to life's origin. There is no evidence contrary to the possibility that life originated through natural processes, so we keep looking.


now i see the problem. You perhaps tink i am a religious wingnut?

cute.

nope. The book of life to me, needs to begin with atoms and energy, not adam and eve.

Do you know why mass combines? (it sure aint a reduction, by accident)

and i will BOLDLY claim, that to comprehend the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how nature operates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 07:15 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(24-08-2012 07:09 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  and go over the physics of both the bending of the strand (which wavelength is causing it)?
What does this mean? Wavelength of what, exactly?

Quote:the FACT is, when you can render the process to the molecule/energy-mass exchange, which will reveal the golden ratio of the energy progression, then you will be possibly, representing an evolution to the molecular scale of a living process.
... and this.

Quote:and i will BOLDLY claim, that to comprehend the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how nature operates.

So, the study of non-living systems is pointless?

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
24-08-2012, 09:19 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2012 09:22 AM by Bishadi.)
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(24-08-2012 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 07:09 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  and go over the physics of both the bending of the strand (which wavelength is causing it)?
What does this mean? Wavelength of what, exactly?

em/electric-magnetic fields of 'light' (energy itself); big spectrum and real stuff, not make believe.

see faraday/maxwell....

even newton loved the light

Which if you comprehended building a 'radio' per se to transmit, ya best get on the right 'wavelength'.

'we' are mass/energy (consciously aware of itself) that is manipulating mass/energy.

'we' are abusing the 'fuck' out of entropy!

breaking the law!!!!


the FACT is, when you can render the process to the molecule/energy-mass exchange, which will reveal the golden ratio of the energy progression, then you will be possibly, representing an evolution to the molecular scale of a living process.


to read that is easy by simply changing the perspective of the life is just 'mass' reducing its state (to equilibrate.) when the life of the mass, is the 'energy' (em) and resonates both poles of its own state (a sphere).

The 'energy' is the life, evolving over time within its environment. The 'life' of the mass.

The nuts and bolts of the concept is easy. Go read up on what Lavoisier did with the 'substance' of energy.

what's it called?

Now to identify that ideology of identifying the energy as the 'state' (wavelength/environment) upon the 'mass' (structure), you have the parts to begin a dialogue on defining an evolving process (the flame)

.

Quote:So, the study of non-living systems is pointless?

the exchange of energy/mass/time, in process, is what the whole universe is doing.

we just so happen to have been evolving, quite nicely in 'the garden' (nature), because of the heavenly environment.

we are there, now!

Existence comprehending 'itself' is you and I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: