Science against evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2013, 04:57 AM
RE: Science against evolution
He is actually being self-consistent, since if light propagated through the aether and the earth was stationary, you would see (approximately) the same result as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Unfortunately for him, we can measure time dilation due to relativity using as simple a setup as synchronized clocks and a jet plane, and if relativity is valid then the aether can't be.

He's also still an idiot because his model completely fails to explain stellar parallax or the transit of Venus, or its phases for that matter, or the movement of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, or apparently meteorites. Each of these astronomical facts cannot fit into the geocentric model without shoehorning them in with special exceptions, elaborate rationalizations, and baseless assertions. They do, however, fit the "heliocentric" (although at this point I think it's fair to say our understanding has progressed quite a bit further than Galileo) model without such needless contortions.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Phaedrus's post
21-01-2013, 05:01 AM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 04:54 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  
You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!
And when there is no water at all (no aether), you have to conclude that your entire premise was wrong from the beginning.

You see, the earth and sun are not suspended in aether. There is no aether. Fact is, it doesn't matter which one revolves around the other for this point - there is no aether and the experiment to which you refer proved that point quite nicely.

Now, other experiments have proved that the earth revolves around the sun, but I'm sure you won't take my word for that, nor will you do any actual research. But the Michelson–Morley experiment didn't prove which one revolved around the other. Those guys set out to prove the aether and ended up disproving it entirely. Whoopsie daisy.

Your boat analogy won't hold water...

(see what I did there?)

"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, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2013 10:45 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Science against evolution
(19-01-2013 04:12 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  1) Genesis 2 is NOT inconsistent with Genesis 1, it merely adds some extra detail to the story. In Genesis 1 says that God made man and woman in his own image then in Genesis 2 it explains HOW God did this.

Genesis 1:9-13
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.


In Genesis 1, God caused vegetation on the 3rd day then created man on the 6th day. However, in Genesis 2...

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It says that God caused vegetation after the creation of man.

In the same vein, in Genesis 1 is says animals were created on the 5th day, but in Genesis 2 it says:

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name

Genesis 2 is also written in a different tense than Genesis 1. It's written in pluperfect tense which shows it's chronologically active. It's the past of the past, so it's showing what happened when it happened. It is very much chronological.

Quote:2) Starlight is more of a problem for Atheists, I don't believe the idea that stars are anywhere near as far away as scientists claim. The bible says they were set in the firmament as lights, and there you are...on a clear night you can see them, little points of light set into the sky.

You can't be serious. Please educate yourself.

Quote:3) Radiometric dating is based on the assumption that decay rates of radioisotopes have remained exactly the same for millions of years. I would distrust that level of uniformity as a base assertion.

You can't be serious. Please educate yourself.

Quote:4) The need to feast on dead flesh is an aftereffect of the Fall of Man. Before Eve's sin there was no death. Likewise bacteria and disease.

The Bible clearly states that God is not progressive in creation. When He rested on the 7th day, His work was complete. He doesn't create anymore... no where at anytime. This means that God had to create bacteria, disease, and carnivores BEFORE death occurred. Since it is physiologically impossible for some of this life to sustain itself without death, how do you explain this?

Quote:1) Aside from the Bible, comparatively little Smile

I suggest looking into it.

Quote:2) I am aware of the epic of Gilgamesh but unsure how you are trying to relate it to the Bible. Enlighten me

It was written thousands of years before the Flood Story. It is uncannily similar to the story in the Bible.

Quote:3)A common thread among a lot of ancient cultures is a story of a global flood, if anything this is more support for the Bible's story of creation rather than antagonism to it. Other cultures who flourished after the flood would have indeed carried with them a memory of the event, which is probably why it's still remembered and spoken of today.

It would if these weren't written millennia before the Hebrew account. It appears as if the Hebrews cannibalized other cultures that are far older and have written accounts.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like kingschosen's post
21-01-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Science against evolution
Um... KC you're still a theist right ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
21-01-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 02:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um... KC you're still a theist right ?


you never woulda guessed.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 02:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um... KC you're still a theist right ?
Of course.

But, I'm just pointing out that a literal interpretation is hard to reconcile.

Moreover, as ANE culture is studied and understood, you see the how and why it was written in a hyperbolic fashion, and how evolution and an allegorical interpretation isn't contrary to God.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 02:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 02:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um... KC you're still a theist right ?
Of course.

But, I'm just pointing out that a literal interpretation is hard to reconcile.

Moreover, as ANE culture is studied and understood, you see the how and why it was written in a hyperbolic fashion, and how evolution and an allegorical interpretation isn't contrary to God.
Ah there it is. The dash of weirdness I crave...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
21-01-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: Science against evolution
(21-01-2013 02:23 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 02:21 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Of course.

But, I'm just pointing out that a literal interpretation is hard to reconcile.

Moreover, as ANE culture is studied and understood, you see the how and why it was written in a hyperbolic fashion, and how evolution and an allegorical interpretation isn't contrary to God.
Ah there it is. The dash of weirdness I crave...
Always there to satisfy your needs Tongue

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
21-01-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Science against evolution
Also, a note on relativity. Time dilation aside, you can still disprove the aether another way, and you can do it at home.

I can prove that light is a wave. In fact I just did. Two slits in a piece of cardboard and a maglite.

[Image: slit_experiment_by_phaedrus2401-d5s9gen.png]

Boom, diffraction pattern. Light is a wave. Therefore it must have a medium to travel through, therefore aether. Wow, you were right all along!

But wait... Then what were those guys clomping around on my roof all last November for?

[Image: untitled_by_phaedrus2401-d5s9eu9.jpg]

Solar power! More specifically, photovoltaic cells. These convert sunlight into electrical power. Not just voltage. No, even a simple antenna can do that. But antennas only pick up a narrow band of frequencies, and while there is an AC signal voltage generated, there's no current to speak of. These photovoltaic cells, well, I can't speak for the ones on the roof, but I've toyed with smaller ones, and hot damn, these things generate some real current. Not enough to power a car, maybe, but way more than can be explained by antenna action.

Photovoltaic cells require quantized, particle light to function. Photovoltaic cells function. Therefore light is a particle.


So wait, which is it? Is light a wave? Or a particle?

Neither and both. Waves and particles are concepts we created to explain our world, but they are not inherent in nature. The things we call fundamental particles -- quarks, gluons, etc. -- are simply quanta of energy that behave in different ways, following the laws of nature. And the wave/particle/quanta we call photons? They don't require an aether, because they are not waves as your uneducated brain understands them.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Phaedrus's post
22-01-2013, 09:00 PM
RE: Science against evolution
Drinking Beverage
Science, religion, and the natural world have always been intertwined. I noticed no one has brought up the issue of creation myths or creation narratives. Examples would be any explanation offered by religion for why we are here and how things came to be.

Hindu Creation Narratives, Christian Creation Myths, and Evolution
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Evidence Against (?) Evolution RedJamaX 8 446 12-07-2014 07:12 AM
Last Post: true scotsman
  9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution. Metazoa Zeke 13 668 16-06-2014 04:03 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Scientist only want evolution to be true for money? Metazoa Zeke 34 725 23-03-2014 03:32 PM
Last Post: rampant.a.i.
  How to talk about evolution to a creationist Metazoa Zeke 2 271 16-03-2014 02:46 PM
Last Post: DemonicLemon
  Observational Science Vs Historical science? Metazoa Zeke 5 190 11-03-2014 11:06 PM
Last Post: BryanS
  Creationism/Evolution Drich 130 2,668 21-02-2014 03:55 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
  A creationsist's idea of a "blow to evolution" Raptor Jesus 21 1,028 15-01-2014 08:38 AM
Last Post: sporehux
Forum Jump: