Page 784 of 1049 FirstFirst ... 284684734774782783784785786794834884 ... LastLast
Results 7,831 to 7,840 of 10487

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #7831
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,602
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,291 Times in 1,950 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    "Bang" is just a descriptive term, no more accurate than "He banged her good".

    Note that the example I gave can result in a lot of organized matter too.

    Roger
    Well, honestly, nobody says the "bang" created order. Order doe spontaneously emerge from chaos under a variety of circumstances, tho.

    I've yet to see a creo concede or understand that, but perhaps I missed something.

  2. #7832
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,776
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 228 Times in 187 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post
    Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.
    Will this dishonesty ever end. This claim by creationist was also debunked, by the existence of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. http://www.motherjones.com/environme...s-creationists , http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/ag...tegration.html, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenc...ecent_creation . Please ignore this nonsense, and do not allow creationist to think for you. You certainly can do a lot better. Don

  3. #7833
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,221
    Thanks
    2,714
    Thanked 1,610 Times in 1,240 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Well, honestly, nobody says the "bang" created order. Order doe spontaneously emerge from chaos under a variety of circumstances, tho.

    I've yet to see a creo concede or understand that, but perhaps I missed something.
    No, you've not missed anything.

    They pin everything on the 2nd Law and entropy.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  4. #7834
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,221
    Thanks
    2,714
    Thanked 1,610 Times in 1,240 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post
    No, no member of mankind can explain that. NOR can any member of mankind explain a 3D HOLLOGRAM burned into an ancient cloth!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhuBGcAzB8
    That image has been explained very adequately - no miracle necessary.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  5. #7835
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,602
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked 2,291 Times in 1,950 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Will this dishonesty ever end. This claim by creationist was also debunked, by the existence of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. http://www.motherjones.com/environme...s-creationists , http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/ag...tegration.html, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenc...ecent_creation . Please ignore this nonsense, and do not allow creationist to think for you. You certainly can do a lot better. Don
    Dont mistake uneducated for dishonest.

    "Unknown' and, "unknown to solver" are somehow different.

  6. #7836
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,776
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 228 Times in 187 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    I could say the same about you. But right now, I'm interested in finding succinct answers to the following questions about topics you and I have been discussing...

    1. Do you agree that similarities among living things do not preclude ID, nor exclusively support UCD?

    2. Do you agree that it is far more likely that something which appears to have been designed for a purpose WAS designed for a purpose, despite the fact that there are a relatively few exceptions to that general rule?

    3. Do you agree that despite Newton, Kepler, Boyle, and the vast majority of the founding fathers of modern science believing that this world was wonderfully orchestrated by a Divine Creator, their scientific investigations did not cease?

    4. Do you agree that current peer reviewed papers are rife with teleological terms, and notions of reverse engineering and mimicking "nature's" designs?
    I am not claiming supernatural responsibility. I am not claiming that God did it all. You are! When you become honest enough to ask a question that does not include the answer in the question, then I will answer. I know your dishonesty prevents you from seeing how dishonest your questions are. For example, "when did you stop beating your wife". Do you understand? I hope you can understand the meaning of my example at least.

    1. Do you agree that similarities among living things do not preclude ID, nor exclusively support UCD?

    2. Do you agree that it is far more likely that something which appears to have been designed for a purpose WAS designed for a purpose, despite the fact that there are a relatively few exceptions to that general rule?

    3. Do you agree that despite Newton, Kepler, Boyle, and the vast majority of the founding fathers of modern science believing that this world was wonderfully orchestrated by a Divine Creator, their scientific investigations did not cease?

    4. Do you agree that current peer reviewed papers are rife with teleological terms, and notions of reverse engineering and mimicking "nature's" designs?

    Rather than going down your made-up, self-serving, pre-assumptive creationist rabbit-holes, why can't you just answer my questions? I even stipulated that even if you could prove all of science and logic to be false, what non-scientific evidence can you present to support your claim? I do not have the burden of proof, YOU DO! I'm not interested in your rephrasing my own questions, to avoid answering them. I'm not interested in your selection of sites and experts, or what their opinions and concerns are. I'm not interested in the self-serving way you interpret other scientist's evidence and data. Everything out of you guys mouth has already been debunked, politely laughed at and ignored. All for good reason. If you truly believe that you are right, present your facts, write your thesis, submit your research, or demonstrate your fallacy-free reasoning(logic). What are you frightened of? Why is the ToE not a reasonable explanation for explaining Random Selection or the Diversity of the Species? What is your reasonable explanation, "God did it", regardless if it all seems to give the appearance of being designed or not? Do you think that the first life came with a complete genome, and all the biochemical processes at once, and not evolved over time? And that each generation just inherited the same biology? Please Please, Please, what is your creation-specific exclusive evidence to at least consider ID as a plausible explanation? It doesn't matter if its just as supernatural as any other idea. It doesn't matter if it's just another Believe or faith. It doesn't matter if I don't have all the answers. It only matters that YOU HAVE THE ANSWERS. So I'm still waiting Mike, so stop stalling and avoiding your responsibility, by keep asking more of these silly questions. Don

  7. #7837
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    35,168
    Thanks
    4,537
    Thanked 5,825 Times in 4,875 Posts
    Blog Entries
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    "Bang" is just a descriptive term,

    Roger
    Was it an explosion or not?
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  8. #7838
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,776
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 228 Times in 187 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    I'm having trouble understanding the syntax, but let me take it one point at a time...

    1. The measurements used to support BB have been changed for decades - each time a new development renders the older ones void. The entire hypothesis began because scientists believed that redshift indicated that our universe was expanding. It was not a popular idea at first, because a Big Bang beginning of our world sounded pretty close to the Biblical account. But now, we don't even know that the universe is expanding, because we don't know that the measured redshift values actually indicate recession from us. Inflation Theory was invented precisely because the original BB model didn't match the observational evidence. Multiverse Theory is simply an unexpected extrapolation of IT. And the asinine Boltzmann Brain Theory is simply an unavoidable outcome of MT.

    But have you been keeping up, Don? Try this Feb 2017 Scientific American article:


    Or this Feb 2017 article from the New York Times:


    2. The mathematical models for BB suffer from the same things I already listed. They are also forever changing, and forcing people to invent completely hypothetical entities like IT, dark matter, and dark energy to compensate. I urge you to read what these cosmologists said in New Scientist, 2004...

    An Open Letter to the Scientific Community


    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

    But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

    Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

    3. Logic is in the eye of the beholder, Don. You might think it's logical that our world just kick-started itself into existence for no apparent reason, and by pure lucky chance resulted in the precisely tuned parameters we experience today - which make life on one particularly finely tuned planet possible. Many others do not. But one thing we can both agree on is that any theory that needs to be revamped, revised, recalculated, and added to by more and more hypothetical entities almost every other year could not have been a very logical theory to start with.

    4. I don't know how else to say it, Don. If the purported BB event did not operate under the same laws and constants that make up our current natural world, it has no choice but to have been a supernatural event. You can either accept this undeniable fact, or keep trying to weasel your way out of it. Either way, if the BB occurred, it was indeed a supernatural event.


    Don, are you by any chance a Jr. High School Basic Science teacher? I ask because you don't seem to be up to date with any topic we discuss, and your posts are just a cheerleading session containing old and tired evo propaganda that has long since been refuted and rejected by current evolutionary scientists.
    What is your explanation of the beginning of the Universe Mike? What is your non-scientific case that supports your conclusion? Tell me genius, when someone states that they don't know something, does that mean they are weaseling out of something? Are you this self-centered and arrogant? Are you claiming that you know for certain that if the natural law did not occur before the BB(or at the time of), that the BB must have happened by supernatural means? That is a sad biased false conclusion. Since you have not excluded all of the other possibilities for the cause of the BB, your supernatural claim is meaningless and self serving. Do you know all the other possibilities? NO AND NEITHER DO I. If you are claiming that you know that no other possibilities for the BB exists, then please share with us Mike, how do you know this? Also, Mike logic is not in the eye of the beholder. It is only your logic that is unique, to be polite. So keep filling those gaps, stroking those egos, and preaching only to the choir, because to the rest science community, you are no better then just another snake-oil peddler. Don

  9. #7839
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,776
    Thanks
    348
    Thanked 228 Times in 187 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    It's like the boy who cried wolf. When every one of his posts is filled with multiple baseless accusations of dishonesty, those accusations cease to mean anything at all.
    Well genius, since you don't address my accusation directly, other than these deflections, It must be because I'm correct. Maybe next time you might point out where my judgement is incorrect. No, Somehow I doubt it! MOTSS Don

  10. #7840
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    11,047
    Thanks
    505
    Thanked 1,232 Times in 1,049 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    Was it an explosion or not?
    Well, it got awfully big awfully fast is about all I can say.

    You need to ask an astrophysicist.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •