Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: Science against evolution









Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 06:09 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 04:53 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 01:22 AM)robotworld Wrote:  For number 2, have you ever looked at pictures of the Sun, our nearest star? Here's a picture.
[Image: xraysun.gif]
It's less "points" of light, more of giant burning nuclear fusion reactors. But just curious, how far do you think the stars are away from Earth?

Regarding point 3, you need to explain further. Show that radioactive decay can actually be changed by environmental influence. Explain why various radiometric dating procedures can yield the same result.

And point 4, I'll have you know that bacteria plays a huge role in the origin of the vast amount of biodiversity we have today. Also, you seem to perceive that all bacteria are bad, which is NOT the case. Heck, various species of bacteria serve as our defenses against other bacteria. Even so, feeding on plants can be considered as "feeding on dead flesh", because plants are living things as well. So, how does anything survive for that matter?

Side point: Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution and Genesis? Show us how.
No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.
4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?


Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.
[Image: 1-s2.0-S092765050900084X-gr2.jpg]

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?

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
20-01-2013, 10:02 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 06:09 AM)robotworld Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 04:53 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  No one is 100% sure but going from Scripture I would estimate that there are several spherical structures into which they are set, with the outermost one being opaque and impenetrable. This last would have a radius of around 4.5 billion miles.

On 3, some modern research is concluding that the rates of radioactive decay is changing over time but they HAVE NO IDEA WHY (LINK)

How do I reconcile evolution with genesis? That's simple, I don't believe evolution is real.
4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?


Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.
[Image: 1-s2.0-S092765050900084X-gr2.jpg]

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?
The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

Check out my YouTube channel for more videos and information Smile

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ5PX9Y...1uwXxWwQ6w
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 10:02 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

Your ignorance is simply astounding. Consider

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
20-01-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 10:02 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 06:09 AM)robotworld Wrote:  4.5 billion miles? That's approximately a radius of 48.4AU (astronomical units) for your outermost sphere. Here's the thing. The solar system alone is larger than the sphere system you proposed. Even so, on what basis your model is valid? Can you provide some other evidence not based on scripture?


Well that's new. I'm not an expert in this field so I can't comment much. Below is one of the graphs I've obtained from the original research paper. Anyone well versed in statistics that can explain this graph, specifically the part on normalising data (left y-axis)? Based on the values I have doubts that such a change will be significant enough to warrant radiometric dating invalid.
[Image: 1-s2.0-S092765050900084X-gr2.jpg]

To the last point. You don't believe that evolution is real? What if I provide you the [evidence] for evolution? In short, evolution of the ability to digest citrate by a population of E. Coli. Still, here's a question: What do you think evolution is?
The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.
You still need to provide evidence other than scripture showing that your model is valid. Anyway, can you find a research paper that actually show that the change in the speed of light in the past is significant? Google Scholar helps a lot in finding papers. I would love to take a look at that paper.

The geocentric model is really, really outdated. You need to show HOW the measurements of celestial bodies do not fit in the geocentric model. Scientists have done their part in showing that the heliocentric model is valid. Now it's your turn to show otherwise.

To understand evolution, you first need to grasp the concept of small changes over time. But if you really want me to show you a bacterium that has grown limbs over the past years, easy. Look at a mirror. You are the result of billions of years of evolution, and it all started from the early prokaryotes, slowly adapting bit by bit. So, what exactly do you think evolution is? You still have not told me yet.

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
20-01-2013, 02:52 PM
RE: Science against evolution
When these average evolution-is-false websites get peer reviewed by scientists and approved, then I'll take a look.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Question's post
20-01-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(20-01-2013 10:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 10:02 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  The problem you are coming up with is the same as the problems the sweary guy in the videos in the post above you has...namely trying to shoehorn the physical constraints of the heliocentric model into the geocentric model. Of course he also includes the oft-repeated claim that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

Now this would cause trouble if it were actually true, which it isn't (LINK), not only this but the assumption that light is actually travelling in vacuum is troubled. The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific establishment. Light travelling through a medium like the aether would be moving SLOWER than the supposedly constant c.

Likewise your other measurements of the mass, distance, speed etc of celestial bodies show clear bias to fit them in with a preassumed model, they don't cause trouble for the Geocentric model since they aren't necessarily TRUE for the geocentric model.

And as for bacteria adapting over time, come back when you can show a bacterium growing hands, eyes and a big toe.

Your ignorance is simply astounding. Consider

This isn't ignorance anymore, this is flat-out stupid.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
21-01-2013, 12:07 AM
RE: Science against evolution
And this is why I love the word - fucktard.

Quote:The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was
set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their
findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific
establishment.

I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 03:52 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 12:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  And this is why I love the word - fucktard.

Quote:The Michaelson-Morley experiment clearly demonstrated that the earth was
set stationary in the aether, even though they had to explain their
findings away to avoid incurring the wrath of the Atheistic scientific
establishment.

I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

Oddly, AtheismExposed didn't make it up. Albert Michelson and Edward Murley made it up.

What AtheismExposed did do was completely misunderstand the experiment and the results. And when I say "misunderstand" I mean he got it exactly 180 degrees backward. This experiment demonstrated that the earth WAS NOT suspended in aether. In fact, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history:

Actually, since even reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia could have provided the truth for our friend AthesimExposed, I'm going to assume he never even looked it up but rather he midlessly parroted the misinformation some other mindless Christian apologist spoonfed him.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 04:54 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 03:52 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 12:07 AM)Filox Wrote:  And this is why I love the word - fucktard.


I think this is the stupidest possible answer one could possibly imagine. WTF are you talking about, what aether and what Atheistic science establishment?

Can you make up something else, please?

Oddly, AtheismExposed didn't make it up. Albert Michelson and Edward Murley made it up.

What AtheismExposed did do was completely misunderstand the experiment and the results. And when I say "misunderstand" I mean he got it exactly 180 degrees backward. This experiment demonstrated that the earth WAS NOT suspended in aether. In fact, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history:

Actually, since even reading the first paragraph on Wikipedia could have provided the truth for our friend AthesimExposed, I'm going to assume he never even looked it up but rather he midlessly parroted the misinformation some other mindless Christian apologist spoonfed him.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution
Ahem, not so.

Quote: Most scientists know about the
Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the
velocity of the earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved
through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result
stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of
the public and this result had to be "explained away".

There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the reason for the experiment.

Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very quiet
engine (the earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the
sun). You are at the centre of the lake and the shore is a long way off
but you can see mountains on it etc. You notice that
the shore (the stars) is going past the large ship fairly quickly, and
you realise that either (i) you are circling the large ship OR (ii) the
large ship is circling you - and you cannot immediately tell which one
is circling which.You know the distance between the two ships and timing
how long it takes for the shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you
can say that either the large ship is going
round you at 30mph or you are going round it at that speed.

There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is circling which. What can you do to find out???

The answer is very simple.


You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!


If you are moving through the water, then it is you going round the large ship, and you can check your speed through the
water to see if it is 30 mph. If it is, then the large ship must be stationary.
HOWEVER, if you find that you are stationary in the water, then it must be the large ship that is GOING ROUND YOU.

The MM experiment showed that the earth was (almost) stationary! So they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction


Check out my YouTube channel for more videos and information Smile

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ5PX9Y...1uwXxWwQ6w
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: