Science Disproves Evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
I am curious as to what your native language is.

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, 10:20 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
(24-08-2012 09:19 AM)Bishadi Wrote:  
(24-08-2012 07:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

[Image: 24510215.jpg] [Image: 22692632.jpg]

I'm so confused.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 10:29 PM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Quote: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)

You're asking me to describe in detail the chemical reactions of genes, and I am not a Biologist. However this is not some supernatural process going on here--it's just chemistry. Are you proposing that somehow the mechanics of genetic replication are not based on basics of Chemistry?

And frankly, this point seems irrelevant to elucidating WTF you are trying to say about this 'paradigm' of understanding of reality you say is wrong.

Quote: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.

I had low expectations for your reply, and you did not disappoint. My knowledge of the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle) is no better than high school biology--which is to say I have a layperson's knowledge of what this is, and not much more than that. But that doesn't prevent me from picking apart the woo in this rambling. Are you really saying the chemistry of the Krebs cycle is not understood by Biologists? Sorry, but you've wandered into crackpot territory here.

Quote: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)

I have not read this paper until just now. But this is an area I feel comfortable addressing. I've derived these equations and relationships before without seeing Planck's paper on the topic.

Can we finally get to what you are actually arguing? You keep babbling obfuscatory woo. So are you saying you disagree with Planck's use of Energy quantization to solve what was until then the puzzle in Physics known as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'?

For others on this forum not well versed in Physics, this wiki article is a layperson's overview of the topic addressed in the paper linked to by Bishadi :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
In short, classical mechanics predicted a distribution of energy intenity versus wavelength of light being emitted from hot objects (like the sun, or stars) which did not make physical sense or match observations. Max Planck proposed that light would be available only in discreet quantities of energies which allowed us to accurately describe the observed relationship between energy intensity, wavelenght, and temperature.

So are we finally getting to what you are actually arguing--that you don't like Quantum Mechanics? Really, this pussyfooting around only reinforces the idea you are trading in technobabble without anything to back up your woo. Again, maybe you do actually have the background to defend what you are saying--whatever it is you are actually saying is still not clear. I suspect language could be a small part of the problem, but that is not an insurmountable issue. I and others on this board can be patient on that point. However your problem is not just clarity of language, but clarity of thought.


Quote: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.

Not necessarily a religious nut, but to be sure, you are a nut. You offer a colorful word salad (with lots of nuts sprinkled in) that is quintessential woo. You toss around science-y sounding words and communicate no concrete ideas.


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

Combines? In what sense are you suggesting that mass combines?

A reduction? Reduction of what? Are you talking about changes in mass in nuclear reactions? Reduction in mass is not the only physically possible option, especially with added inputs of large amounts of energy.

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

You really are proud of yourself, aren't you? You brag about your super awesome Physics skills and love making bold, brash claims.

If you cannot actually articulate your understanding of how nature operates, you are either a charlatan or an inarticulate buffoon.

So which is it?


Quote: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!!!!

Wow--are you nucking futz! Abusing entropy? How does one do that?

And a simple explanation for your use of wavelength in place of energy is all that was needed. Instead, you puffed yourself up by referring Chas to Faraday and Maxwell?

Quote: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)

You are mixing new age philosophical gobbledegook and science terminology with the intent that throwing out words used in science somehow gives credibility to your philosophical woo. I'm afraid your brain has been thoroughly fried. You don't admit to being a religious nut, but you sound a lot like Deepak Chopra to me, and he does wooo much better than you do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BryanS's post
25-08-2012, 07:18 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
BryanS Wrote:
Bishadi Wrote:Quote: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)

You're asking me to describe in detail the chemical reactions of genes
‘chemical reaction’ DOES NOT EXPLAIN dna folding.
Get the point? Nor do you comprehend the concept of the environment being within a state (wavelength). “heat’ is not a force of nature.

BryanS Wrote:and I am not a Biologist. However this is not some supernatural process going on here--it's just chemistry.
no magic, no super nothing, just nature: so stipulated!

Quote: Are you proposing that somehow the mechanics of genetic replication are not based on basics of Chemistry?
Exactly!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:19 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
BryanS Wrote:
Bishadi Wrote: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.

I had low expectations for your reply, and you did not disappoint. My knowledge of the Krebs cycle (citric acid cycle) is no better than high school biology
I can see that. The cycle is a part of all life. Yet you have no idea how it works, but are here to tell me how woo I am on evolution????

Go lay by your dish, unless you are up for an education. Right here!


BryanS Wrote:
Bishadi Wrote::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)

I have not read this paper until just now. But this is an area I feel comfortable addressing. I've derived these equations and relationships before without seeing Planck's paper on the topic.
Now that is a joke in itself. You admit never seeing the paper that began the ‘quanta’ yet you claim to derive the same….?!?!? That’s a stoned cold LIE!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:24 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
BryanS Wrote:Can we finally get to what you are actually arguing?

. So are you saying you disagree with Planck's use of Energy quantization to solve what was until then the puzzle in Physics known as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'?
shut up.

How many know what ‘black’ is to nature?

You are making yourself look like an idiot. A) I didn’t bring up the radiation curve. B) planck paper is a joke because it combined a direction to the distribution. (I bet you DONT even comprehend why planck even created the unit quanta to energy)

Hot (heat) aint a property (unit) of nature, dude. ‘To equilibrate’ is product of the steam engine era.

You are out of your league, old timer!

Quote:For others on this forum not well versed in Physics, this wiki article is a layperson's overview of the topic addressed in the paper linked to by Bishadi :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

In short, classical mechanics predicted a distribution of energy intenity versus wavelength of light being emitted from hot objects (like the sun, or stars) which did not make physical sense or match observations. Max Planck proposed that light would be available only in discreet quantities of energies which allowed us to accurately describe the observed relationship between energy intensity, wavelenght, and temperature.


Exactly…….

Hence ‘walking the planck’ is for morons!

For anyone that reads the experiments (black body) and even the double slit, the error of both is the mass is not observed as relevant. Ie…. A graphene ‘box’ and a black metal box with black paint, will have completely different results and likewise, in the double slit experiment, the receiving plate will affect the pattern exposed (color).

You need to sit back and realize how stupid some of your ‘beliefs’ are. For example: Stars aint emitting cuz their ‘hot’. Think for a bit before posting. You have no idea which wavelengths are the catalyst of pretty much any chemical reaction and are defending planck, based on a radiation curve (experiment) before they even knew what the material reactions are/were for each molecule at which wavelength.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:27 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:30 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
BryanS Wrote:
Bishad Wrote:and i will BOLDLY claim, that to comprehend the process of a living structure is what unfolds the understanding of how nature operates.

You really are proud of yourself, aren't you? You brag about your super awesome Physics skills and love making bold, brash claims.

I have been within the physics of defining life, for over 3 decades and you cant even comprehend that qm is joke for defining living processes.

I post that by describing a living process will assist in understanding how nature operates and you have the audacity to argue that very fact?

What a punk!

Quote:If you cannot actually articulate your understanding of how nature operates, you are either a charlatan or an inarticulate buffoon.

So which is it?
I can articulate how nature operates on every level.

It is the punks like you that don’t see just how ignorant you really are that is buffoon.

BryanS Wrote:Abusing entropy? How does one do that?
put on a jacket when you’re cold.

I would say, just read and write, but I can see you are having difficulty.

Do you wear a helmet when you walk?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:32 AM
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
[Image: 21715223.jpg]

Seriously, you aren't making a coherent thought. You are taking about so many generic concepts. And your last comment about entropy. What the flying fuck?

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2012 08:46 AM by BryanS.)
RE: Science Disproves Evolution
Well, Bishadi, I can tell you are a complete buffoon. Who knew that the chemical reactions of DNA are not chemical reactions after all! There is enough other idiocy to address where I am better qualified to knock down. I'll leave it to a Biologist to get to your other "points".

Quote:Now that is a joke in itself. You admit never seeing the paper that began the ‘quanta’ yet you claim to derive the same….?!?!? That’s a stoned cold LIE!

This distribution is a significant concept in any formal training in Physics. It would be somewhat expected for me to have derived those equations simply as part of a thorough course in statistical thermodynamics. It should be clear to you by now that I have studied Physics, and deriving these equations is something any serious student of Physics should have done in their training.

Quote:shut up.

How many know what ‘black’ is to nature?

You are making yourself look like an idiot. A) I didn’t bring up the radiation curve. B) planck paper is a joke because it combined a direction to the distribution. (I bet you DONT even comprehend why planck even created the unit quanta to energy)

Hot (heat) aint a property (unit) of nature, dude. ‘To equilibrate’ is product of the steam engine era.

You are out of your league, old timer!

Shutup, he explained! You obviously do not understand the significance of the paper you cited. Of course I brought up the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. The solution to deriving the correct equations to explain the distribution of wavelengths of light (which Planck derived in the paper you linked), by assuming quantization of the energy of light, was one of the most significant findings that bolstered quantum mechanics in the history of the field.

And another thing which proves to me you are out of your league here, is that you confuse the concepts of heat and temperature. No Physicist would ever confuse those terms. You are a fake, a fraud, a charlatan.

Quote:what ‘energy’?

Which ‘wavelengths’ are causing which reaction.

To me, adding heat to a basic reaction is like washing the window of your car with niagra falls. Each reaction only needs a specific wavelength, not a huge part of the em spectrum.

For example: morons are defining the whole of physics on a black body experiment, when the majority of the whole em spectrum could be considered ‘black’ since you cant see it.

You're obsessed with one idea. Not every energy--take kinetic energy for instance-- is a wavelength.

But your last sentence here really raises beclowning oneself to a new art form. Blackbody radiation isn't so-called that because of its color. A black body is an idealization for an object that absorbs all light of all colors.

Which brings me back to:

Quote:Hence ‘walking the planck’ is for morons!

For anyone that reads the experiments (black body) and even the double slit, the error of both is the mass is not observed as relevant. Ie…. A graphene ‘box’ and a black metal box with black paint, will have completely different results and likewise, in the double slit experiment, the receiving plate will affect the pattern exposed (color).

You need to sit back and realize how stupid some of your ‘beliefs’ are. For example: Stars aint emitting cuz their ‘hot’. Think for a bit before posting. You have no idea which wavelengths are the catalyst of pretty much any chemical reaction and are defending planck, based on a radiation curve (experiment) before they even knew what the material reactions are/were for each molecule at which wavelength.

Ummm, yeah. Thermal radiation has to do with the temperature of the object. Of course different materials behave differently, because a black body is an 'idealization'. Graphene and a box you paint black are not black bodies.

You bring up another important idea that was critical to forming the foundations of quantum mechanics--the double slit. We found that in addition to light, other things that have mass like electrons also demonstrate the same wave-like properties when sent through the double slit. Did you not know this Bishadi?

Quote:I have been within the physics of defining life, for over 3 decades and you cant even comprehend that qm is joke for defining living processes.

I post that by describing a living process will assist in understanding how nature operates and you have the audacity to argue that very fact?

What a punk!

Only in your mind have you been in the field you describe. Do you still conduct your studies and write your posts from the basement of your parents house?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: