That was part of a song from the seventies, I think. Don't know who sung it, though.
The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1481849 wrote: I still don't get the point of it. Still, "it takes every kind of people, to make this world go round"....
That was part of a song from the seventies, I think. Don't know who sung it, though.
The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
That was part of a song from the seventies, I think. Don't know who sung it, though.
The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1481934 wrote: The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
As always you begin with a false premise. Science has not done anything of the sort. On the contrary, science has prove evolution. You just seem to be mentally incapable of seeing this, only having eyes for Dolt Brown's ramblings. Even IF science had disproved evolution (and I can't emphasise IF too strongly, as it is only a hypothetical variable), even then that would not point to a creator. A creator would be ONE possibility in the millenia of others, seeing as it is the very nature of science to accept all possibilities & then to analyse any evidence which may be presented to support it. So both of your claims are shown to be false.
Finally, seeing as you seem to believe in the concept of creation, as per the literal word of the Bible, you should be denying that the earth rotates at all as, according to the Bible, it predated the sun, which meant it had nothing to rotate around - or are you also one of those whackoes that believes the earth is at the centre of the entire universe as well?
Furthermore, what is the point of your last statement in the first place? It would imply that someone had made some claim to the contrary which, to be fair, is one of Brown's specialities - to make a statement out of thin air, imply that it was based on a claim that someone else had made, and then to use that as a premise of fact in an attempt to belittle their integrity. It is also a common trick in the lying world of Politics.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
As always you begin with a false premise. Science has not done anything of the sort. On the contrary, science has prove evolution. You just seem to be mentally incapable of seeing this, only having eyes for Dolt Brown's ramblings. Even IF science had disproved evolution (and I can't emphasise IF too strongly, as it is only a hypothetical variable), even then that would not point to a creator. A creator would be ONE possibility in the millenia of others, seeing as it is the very nature of science to accept all possibilities & then to analyse any evidence which may be presented to support it. So both of your claims are shown to be false.
Finally, seeing as you seem to believe in the concept of creation, as per the literal word of the Bible, you should be denying that the earth rotates at all as, according to the Bible, it predated the sun, which meant it had nothing to rotate around - or are you also one of those whackoes that believes the earth is at the centre of the entire universe as well?
Furthermore, what is the point of your last statement in the first place? It would imply that someone had made some claim to the contrary which, to be fair, is one of Brown's specialities - to make a statement out of thin air, imply that it was based on a claim that someone else had made, and then to use that as a premise of fact in an attempt to belittle their integrity. It is also a common trick in the lying world of Politics.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1481934 wrote: The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
In your opinion science disproves evolution, but not in mine. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, but you won't be convincing me anytime soon, especially in the light of decades of evidence and research. I'll give you this, Pahu, you've done your best!
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
In your opinion science disproves evolution, but not in mine. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, but you won't be convincing me anytime soon, especially in the light of decades of evidence and research. I'll give you this, Pahu, you've done your best!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Posted by Pahu:
The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
FourPart;1481967 wrote: As always you begin with a false premise. Science has not done anything of the sort. On the contrary, science has prove evolution. Even IF science had disproved evolution (and I can't emphasise IF too strongly, as it is only a hypothetical variable), even then that would not point to a creator. A creator would be ONE possibility in the millenia of others, seeing as it is the very nature of science to accept all possibilities & then to analyse any evidence which may be presented to support it. So both of your claims are shown to be false.
In what way are they false? What are all those possibilities? I only see two; evolution or creation. Every post I have shared shows how science disproves evolution. That leaves creation. Basically before the universe existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. That leaves a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Science backs that up:
Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from? His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE
The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it¦He is Lord of heaven and earth. Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.
Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.
WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God? Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God¦.
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect Scientific Proof that God Exists
Finally, seeing as you seem to believe in the concept of creation, as per the literal word of the Bible, you should be denying that the earth rotates at all as, according to the Bible, it predated the sun, which meant it had nothing to rotate around - or are you also one of those whackoes that believes the earth is at the centre of the entire universe as well?
The Bible says; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Where is there anything about the earth predating the sun in that statement? Try learning what you are claiming.
Furthermore, what is the point of your last statement in the first place? It would imply that someone had made some claim to the contrary which, to be fair, is one of Brown's specialities - to make a statement out of thin air, imply that it was based on a claim that someone else had made, and then to use that as a premise of fact in an attempt to belittle their integrity. It is also a common trick in the lying world of Politics.
Smaug said: Still, "it takes every kind of people, to make this world go round"....
I was just making a joke. Sorry you didn't get it.
The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
FourPart;1481967 wrote: As always you begin with a false premise. Science has not done anything of the sort. On the contrary, science has prove evolution. Even IF science had disproved evolution (and I can't emphasise IF too strongly, as it is only a hypothetical variable), even then that would not point to a creator. A creator would be ONE possibility in the millenia of others, seeing as it is the very nature of science to accept all possibilities & then to analyse any evidence which may be presented to support it. So both of your claims are shown to be false.
In what way are they false? What are all those possibilities? I only see two; evolution or creation. Every post I have shared shows how science disproves evolution. That leaves creation. Basically before the universe existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. That leaves a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Science backs that up:
Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from? His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE
The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it¦He is Lord of heaven and earth. Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.
He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalm 90:2).
And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.
Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.
WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God? Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God¦.
Apologetics Press - Cause and Effect Scientific Proof that God Exists
Finally, seeing as you seem to believe in the concept of creation, as per the literal word of the Bible, you should be denying that the earth rotates at all as, according to the Bible, it predated the sun, which meant it had nothing to rotate around - or are you also one of those whackoes that believes the earth is at the centre of the entire universe as well?
The Bible says; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). Where is there anything about the earth predating the sun in that statement? Try learning what you are claiming.
Furthermore, what is the point of your last statement in the first place? It would imply that someone had made some claim to the contrary which, to be fair, is one of Brown's specialities - to make a statement out of thin air, imply that it was based on a claim that someone else had made, and then to use that as a premise of fact in an attempt to belittle their integrity. It is also a common trick in the lying world of Politics.
Smaug said: Still, "it takes every kind of people, to make this world go round"....
I was just making a joke. Sorry you didn't get it.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1481986 wrote:
In what way are they false? What are all those possibilities? I only see two; evolution or creation. Every post I have shared shows how science disproves evolution. That leaves creation. Basically before the universe existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. That leaves a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Science backs that up:
Which means that you are admitting exactly what I have accused you of. Having a bi-polar point of view. One view (the scientific version) provides plenty of hard evidence to substantiate its claims, accepted by atheists & members of all sorts of faiths worldwide. Your view, on the other hand has no evidence other than hearsay. You deny the existence of evidence because it doesn't support what you want it to say. Evidence is not intended to prove or disprove anything. It's just like another piece in a jigsaw, making the overall picture clearer. If the generally accepted picture is blue, and yours is red & the piece is blue, you insist the piece doesn't exist. Whereas if you come across one that has a slight hue of pink, then you take that as disproving the existence of the entire blue jigsaw.
As for others theories, there are thousands of them. Just because they exist, though, doesn't make them any more credible. There is, for instance, a theory that neither nor any any of the rest of the Universe really exist at all and that we are only flashes of energy creating a sort of dream world, so that what we see & hear as being physical isn't there at all, but a figment of our imagination in this integrated dream world. I'm not even putting this forward as being a credible alternative. I am merely making the point that there other theories. It's not just a case of being if it's not one then it has to be the other. It's a bit like the search for extra-terrestrial life. No doubt you deny the existence of such a possibility because it doesn't say so in your precious Bible. Well, get this. It doesn't say that there isn't either. Just because we have found it yet doesn't mean that we won't. If you lose your keys at home, do you stop searching after they're not in the first place you look & take the attitude that they're not there, therefore they don't exist?
As for where it says that the earth predated the sun. How about Genesis 1:1 (typically of the Bible, the wording changes in whichever version you choose to read, but for the purposes required here it doesn't really matter as the order of the events in the story remain consistent in all versions).
1. In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a]
2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light—and light appeared.
4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness,
5 and he named the light “Day and the darkness “Night. Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=GNT)
Unless you deny also that the Light comes from the Sun, that shows that the Earth predates the Sun, seeing as it was included in 1 & 2. The Sun (Light) didn't into being until 3.
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Fair enough (unless you believe in the Dream World option). Note the key word IF though.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
On the whole, fairly accurate, except for some minor, but important discrepancies. The most important of all being that time here is being viewed as a linear thing. It is not. It is a variable. This much was demonstrated mathematically by Einstein in his Theory of Relativity & later proved by the use of Atomic Clocks. Time is a dimension in its own right. Time as a unit is directly related to light. A Black Hole is known to have such a dense gravitational field that even light cannot escape from it. It is also believed that same is true of Time, inasmuch as time can't escape from a black hole. This means that once it gets to the centre & has nowhere else to go, Time stops. However, as with a pendulum it will first pass one point & then return to the pull of the force, thus time can go backwards. In this way it is possible for an effect to happen before the cause. I know it's a mind boggling concept & not easy to understand, let alone explain.
The other theory, of course, is that over time (linear) these black holes eventually absorb everything there is to absorb (which is possibly a form of your pet word, entropy). Everything gets drawn into an infinitely small existence where even time no longer exists. Then, whether or not it has a reason (as known laws of physics would probably no longer have any meaning) something happens & a chain reaction is initiated, and the Big Bang starts all over again.
At least in the opening sentence to the paragraph (As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions) he admits the possibility of exceptions, even if he didn't intend to. What we do know about the Universe compared to that which we don't know is like a molecule of water from the entire oceans on the earth - if that much.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from? His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
What then tends to happen is that when Mommy doesn't know the answer either, exasperated she come out & says "The fairies put it there by magic".
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
The fact that is being ignored here is that matter & energy are interchangeable. If a piece of coal burns it converts the potential energy stored within its mass into a multitude of other energy forms in the form of heat, light & sound, but if you weigh the coal afterwards it will not weigh as much. This demonstrates that energy has mass. In burning the coal you have removed the energy from the matter. The first rule of the conservation of energy is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. Matter is just a storage medium of Potential Energy. Therefore whatever initialised the creation of the universe doesn't even need to be material. Just energy.
In what way are they false? What are all those possibilities? I only see two; evolution or creation. Every post I have shared shows how science disproves evolution. That leaves creation. Basically before the universe existed there was nothing from which the universe appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. That leaves a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe. Science backs that up:
Which means that you are admitting exactly what I have accused you of. Having a bi-polar point of view. One view (the scientific version) provides plenty of hard evidence to substantiate its claims, accepted by atheists & members of all sorts of faiths worldwide. Your view, on the other hand has no evidence other than hearsay. You deny the existence of evidence because it doesn't support what you want it to say. Evidence is not intended to prove or disprove anything. It's just like another piece in a jigsaw, making the overall picture clearer. If the generally accepted picture is blue, and yours is red & the piece is blue, you insist the piece doesn't exist. Whereas if you come across one that has a slight hue of pink, then you take that as disproving the existence of the entire blue jigsaw.
As for others theories, there are thousands of them. Just because they exist, though, doesn't make them any more credible. There is, for instance, a theory that neither nor any any of the rest of the Universe really exist at all and that we are only flashes of energy creating a sort of dream world, so that what we see & hear as being physical isn't there at all, but a figment of our imagination in this integrated dream world. I'm not even putting this forward as being a credible alternative. I am merely making the point that there other theories. It's not just a case of being if it's not one then it has to be the other. It's a bit like the search for extra-terrestrial life. No doubt you deny the existence of such a possibility because it doesn't say so in your precious Bible. Well, get this. It doesn't say that there isn't either. Just because we have found it yet doesn't mean that we won't. If you lose your keys at home, do you stop searching after they're not in the first place you look & take the attitude that they're not there, therefore they don't exist?
As for where it says that the earth predated the sun. How about Genesis 1:1 (typically of the Bible, the wording changes in whichever version you choose to read, but for the purposes required here it doesn't really matter as the order of the events in the story remain consistent in all versions).
1. In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a]
2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light—and light appeared.
4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness,
5 and he named the light “Day and the darkness “Night. Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=GNT)
Unless you deny also that the Light comes from the Sun, that shows that the Earth predates the Sun, seeing as it was included in 1 & 2. The Sun (Light) didn't into being until 3.
The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here? Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.
Fair enough (unless you believe in the Dream World option). Note the key word IF though.
Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.
Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.
On the whole, fairly accurate, except for some minor, but important discrepancies. The most important of all being that time here is being viewed as a linear thing. It is not. It is a variable. This much was demonstrated mathematically by Einstein in his Theory of Relativity & later proved by the use of Atomic Clocks. Time is a dimension in its own right. Time as a unit is directly related to light. A Black Hole is known to have such a dense gravitational field that even light cannot escape from it. It is also believed that same is true of Time, inasmuch as time can't escape from a black hole. This means that once it gets to the centre & has nowhere else to go, Time stops. However, as with a pendulum it will first pass one point & then return to the pull of the force, thus time can go backwards. In this way it is possible for an effect to happen before the cause. I know it's a mind boggling concept & not easy to understand, let alone explain.
The other theory, of course, is that over time (linear) these black holes eventually absorb everything there is to absorb (which is possibly a form of your pet word, entropy). Everything gets drawn into an infinitely small existence where even time no longer exists. Then, whether or not it has a reason (as known laws of physics would probably no longer have any meaning) something happens & a chain reaction is initiated, and the Big Bang starts all over again.
At least in the opening sentence to the paragraph (As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions) he admits the possibility of exceptions, even if he didn't intend to. What we do know about the Universe compared to that which we don't know is like a molecule of water from the entire oceans on the earth - if that much.
Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from? His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.
What then tends to happen is that when Mommy doesn't know the answer either, exasperated she come out & says "The fairies put it there by magic".
One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.
The fact that is being ignored here is that matter & energy are interchangeable. If a piece of coal burns it converts the potential energy stored within its mass into a multitude of other energy forms in the form of heat, light & sound, but if you weigh the coal afterwards it will not weigh as much. This demonstrates that energy has mass. In burning the coal you have removed the energy from the matter. The first rule of the conservation of energy is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another. Matter is just a storage medium of Potential Energy. Therefore whatever initialised the creation of the universe doesn't even need to be material. Just energy.
Science Disproves Evolution
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
And what is so difficult to believe that something has always existed? You make the same claim about your God having always existed all the time. There cannot be one rule for what you want something to explain what you want it to say & then disallow it when it also backs up something you don't want it to say.
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God? Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
Just gumph trying to squirm from the obvious flaw in the argument. Their own argument disproves their case, so they try to make a clause to say, but this case, and this case only is an exception, because it is. It's just like a child having a tantrum & shouting "Because I say so!!".
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God¦.
As explained earlier, the law of Cause & Effect only considers Time as a Linear thing. In Universal terms it has no meaning here.
And what is so difficult to believe that something has always existed? You make the same claim about your God having always existed all the time. There cannot be one rule for what you want something to explain what you want it to say & then disallow it when it also backs up something you don't want it to say.
Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God? Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
Just gumph trying to squirm from the obvious flaw in the argument. Their own argument disproves their case, so they try to make a clause to say, but this case, and this case only is an exception, because it is. It's just like a child having a tantrum & shouting "Because I say so!!".
The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God¦.
As explained earlier, the law of Cause & Effect only considers Time as a Linear thing. In Universal terms it has no meaning here.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1481934 wrote: The point is that since science disproves evolution. That leaves creation, which demands a Creator.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
You'd think that after nearly two thousand posts, you would have presented some science to show your claim. But, you have yet to do so.
I thought the earth rotated without the help of people.
You'd think that after nearly two thousand posts, you would have presented some science to show your claim. But, you have yet to do so.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1481996 wrote:
One view (the scientific version) provides plenty of hard evidence to substantiate its claims, accepted by atheists & members of all sorts of faiths worldwide.
That is true about real evidence based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event. For the modern scientific method you need to have a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis empirically verified. This can only be done in the present. Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history.
Your view, on the other hand has no evidence other than hearsay. You deny the existence of evidence because it doesn't support what you want it to say. Evidence is not intended to prove or disprove anything.
Wrong! All of my posts are crammed with evidence, confirmed by scientists. You are the one denying the evidence. If the evidence proves creation (which it does) then it automatically disproves evolution and atheism.
As for others theories, there are thousands of them. Just because they exist, though, doesn't make them any more credible.
True, and the flawed ones, like evolution, have been disproved by the facts of science.
It's a bit like the search for extra-terrestrial life. No doubt you deny the existence of such a possibility because it doesn't say so in your precious Bible. Well, get this. It doesn't say that there isn't either. Just because we have found it yet doesn't mean that we won't.
We won't because there are none. Life on Earth is extremely well balanced and interdependent. The only reason for believing in extraterrestrial life is because of the erroneous belief in the disproved notion of evolution.
As for where it says that the earth predated the sun. How about Genesis 1:1 (typically of the Bible, the wording changes in whichever version you choose to read, but for the purposes required here it doesn't really matter as the order of the events in the story remain consistent in all versions).
1. In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a]
2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light—and light appeared.
4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness,
5 and he named the light “Day and the darkness “Night. Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=GNT)
Unless you deny also that the Light comes from the Sun, that shows that the Earth predates the Sun, seeing as it was included in 1 & 2. The Sun (Light) didn't into being until 3.
You are using a distorted version of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The heavens include the sun. In verse two it says: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Formless and empty come from the Hebrew tohu and bohu, which means chaos and confusion. God is not the author of chaos and confusion, therefor something happened between verse one and verse two that created that condition. I believe the destruction was created by the Satan and his angels when they were cast down to Earth. That destruction was so severe that it raised so much dust, debris and volcanic ash that it blotted out the sun. God cleared away the debris in verse three which allowed the sunlight to be seen.
Time is a dimension in its own right. Time as a unit is directly related to light.
Time is only our measurement of change, nothing more.
One view (the scientific version) provides plenty of hard evidence to substantiate its claims, accepted by atheists & members of all sorts of faiths worldwide.
That is true about real evidence based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event. For the modern scientific method you need to have a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis empirically verified. This can only be done in the present. Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history.
Your view, on the other hand has no evidence other than hearsay. You deny the existence of evidence because it doesn't support what you want it to say. Evidence is not intended to prove or disprove anything.
Wrong! All of my posts are crammed with evidence, confirmed by scientists. You are the one denying the evidence. If the evidence proves creation (which it does) then it automatically disproves evolution and atheism.
As for others theories, there are thousands of them. Just because they exist, though, doesn't make them any more credible.
True, and the flawed ones, like evolution, have been disproved by the facts of science.
It's a bit like the search for extra-terrestrial life. No doubt you deny the existence of such a possibility because it doesn't say so in your precious Bible. Well, get this. It doesn't say that there isn't either. Just because we have found it yet doesn't mean that we won't.
We won't because there are none. Life on Earth is extremely well balanced and interdependent. The only reason for believing in extraterrestrial life is because of the erroneous belief in the disproved notion of evolution.
As for where it says that the earth predated the sun. How about Genesis 1:1 (typically of the Bible, the wording changes in whichever version you choose to read, but for the purposes required here it doesn't really matter as the order of the events in the story remain consistent in all versions).
1. In the beginning, when God created the universe,[a]
2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
3 Then God commanded, “Let there be light—and light appeared.
4 God was pleased with what he saw. Then he separated the light from the darkness,
5 and he named the light “Day and the darkness “Night. Evening passed and morning came—that was the first day.
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=GNT)
Unless you deny also that the Light comes from the Sun, that shows that the Earth predates the Sun, seeing as it was included in 1 & 2. The Sun (Light) didn't into being until 3.
You are using a distorted version of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The heavens include the sun. In verse two it says: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Formless and empty come from the Hebrew tohu and bohu, which means chaos and confusion. God is not the author of chaos and confusion, therefor something happened between verse one and verse two that created that condition. I believe the destruction was created by the Satan and his angels when they were cast down to Earth. That destruction was so severe that it raised so much dust, debris and volcanic ash that it blotted out the sun. God cleared away the debris in verse three which allowed the sunlight to be seen.
Time is a dimension in its own right. Time as a unit is directly related to light.
Time is only our measurement of change, nothing more.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1481996 wrote: The fact that is being ignored here is that matter & energy are interchangeable. Matter is just a storage medium of Potential Energy. Therefore whatever initialised the creation of the universe doesn't even need to be material. Just energy.
The fact remains that before the universe existed, there was nothing (including matter and energy), from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural!
The fact remains that before the universe existed, there was nothing (including matter and energy), from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause was supernatural!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.
FourPart;1481997 wrote: And what is so difficult to believe that something has always existed? You make the same claim about your God having always existed all the time. There cannot be one rule for what you want something to explain what you want it to say & then disallow it when it also backs up something you don't want it to say.
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
As explained earlier, the law of Cause & Effect only considers Time as a Linear thing. In Universal terms it has no meaning here.
As explained earlier, time is merely our measurement of change. Time only exists in our minds. It has no objective reality.
FourPart;1481997 wrote: And what is so difficult to believe that something has always existed? You make the same claim about your God having always existed all the time. There cannot be one rule for what you want something to explain what you want it to say & then disallow it when it also backs up something you don't want it to say.
There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
As explained earlier, the law of Cause & Effect only considers Time as a Linear thing. In Universal terms it has no meaning here.
As explained earlier, time is merely our measurement of change. Time only exists in our minds. It has no objective reality.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482041 wrote: You'd think that after nearly two thousand posts, you would have presented some science to show your claim. But, you have yet to do so.
Perhaps it would help to open your eyes (and mind) when your read those posts. Every post from Walt Brown contains the facts of science and is confirmed by scientists such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Perhaps it would help to open your eyes (and mind) when your read those posts. Every post from Walt Brown contains the facts of science and is confirmed by scientists such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482153 wrote: Perhaps it would help to open your eyes (and mind) when your read those posts. Every post from Walt Brown contains the facts of science and is confirmed by scientists such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Sorry, but we already discussed that. Quoting speculating scientists is not science.
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Sorry, but we already discussed that. Quoting speculating scientists is not science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482155 wrote: Sorry, but we already discussed that. Quoting speculating scientists is not science.
In what way are they speculating? Perhaps your real problem is not accepting any scientific facts that threaten your evidence free erroneous pre-concemptions.
In what way are they speculating? Perhaps your real problem is not accepting any scientific facts that threaten your evidence free erroneous pre-concemptions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You guys just don't get it, do you? Pahu has been tapped out for a while now, he shot his load a long time ago and the only thing he can do is repost his trash. He can do that as long as you engage him about the subject. That's why he keeps asking you questions in an effort to keep the thread active.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1482169 wrote: You guys just don't get it, do you? Pahu has been tapped out for a while now, he shot his load a long time ago and the only thing he can do is repost his trash. He can do that as long as you engage him about the subject. That's why he keeps asking you questions in an effort to keep the thread active.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
Nope. You missed it.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
Nope. You missed it.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482158 wrote: In what way are they speculating? Perhaps your real problem is accepting any scientific facts that threaten your evidence free erroneous pre-concemptions.
I have dug through your "references", found a number of quotes you Mr Brown uses, and dug up the articles, to find the entire piece from where the quotes came, putting perspective on the statements.
When I have posted some here, you respond with more drivel about evidence-free speculation, and such, or simply ignore the posted info, and offer up something else, equally evidence-free.
It is you who offers evidence-free speculation, based upon the ravings of a self-deluded engineer.
I have dug through your "references", found a number of quotes you Mr Brown uses, and dug up the articles, to find the entire piece from where the quotes came, putting perspective on the statements.
When I have posted some here, you respond with more drivel about evidence-free speculation, and such, or simply ignore the posted info, and offer up something else, equally evidence-free.
It is you who offers evidence-free speculation, based upon the ravings of a self-deluded engineer.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482208 wrote: Nope. You missed it.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.He leaves and returns for three reasons:
1) to put space between posts to lengthen the time
2) he's maintaining other threads on other sites.
3) he also has real life responsibilities
Suit yourself, you've been told.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.He leaves and returns for three reasons:
1) to put space between posts to lengthen the time
2) he's maintaining other threads on other sites.
3) he also has real life responsibilities
Suit yourself, you've been told.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1482210 wrote: He leaves and returns for three reasons:
1) to put space between posts to lengthen the time
2) he's maintaining other threads on other sites.
3) he also has real life responsibilities
Suit yourself, you've been told.
Seems sensible to me.
1) to put space between posts to lengthen the time
2) he's maintaining other threads on other sites.
3) he also has real life responsibilities
Suit yourself, you've been told.
Seems sensible to me.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
The same old telephone directory from Who's Who coupled with the stock manifesto of any grotty newsagent is not proof of anything. As with everyone of your claims it is unsubstantiated &, at best taken out of context. Time & time again you have been challenged to provide links to exactly where any of those names were quoted in any of those publications. Not just some name of a person and some name of a publication. That says nothing apart from that you can't back up what you say, which you can't. You clearly blindly follow the prattlings of Walt Brown without question. You don't even ask yourself "Just what is it all these noted scientists have said? What else have they said here?" Why haven't you looked for yourself? Perhaps you have looked - but not found anything. Why not? Simple - because they don't exist. I could include you self same list of scientists & publications to cite all those that have supported the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants, and it would be just as valid as Brown's claims, with just as much verifiability.
You defined that in order to prove something exists by science it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Well, that much has been done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution) many times.
You claimed that science has disproved evolution. Science does not disprove anything. That is not the nature of science. Science only PROVES things. Science cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.
You claim that science has proved Creation to be true, yet you also claim that in order to prove something it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Ok. You tell me where the Creation has been repeated under controlled conditions.
Every single one of your claims falls apart under the simplest of logic.
You now try to rewrite the meaning of Genesis when it doesn't suit your way of thinking. If the Sun was included in the Heavens & the Earth bit, why would there also need to be Light as a separate item?
True, as far as we know, nothing can come of nothing, yet you also claim that God came of nothing. You have also claimed that God existed before Time, yet you also claim that Time is only in our minds. Wrong. Time is a definite dimension. An object not only has your 3 dimensions, Length, Breadth & Depth, but it also has When. That is the dimension of time. Time existed long before Man came into being. Time is observable & has been observed to show that it is not constant.
As for there your claim that there isn't any life anywhere else in the Universe, well that is just plain arrogant. Even if your Creationist dream were to be true, who are you to say that he didn't create some other worlds elsewhere in the Universe with similar life on them? Remember that in the context of the size of the Universe, our Solar System is less that the size of a molecule of water in all the oceans on Earth, yet you seem to believe that in all the other Solar Systems out there that there can't be another planet in a similar orbit around a similar sun. You also assume that life has to have exactly the same conditions to survive. Once again, you are wrong. There have been shown to be extremophile life forms on our own planet that survive in the very heat of lava flows, as well as others deep within the Polar Ice Caps. There are also those that thrive under the immense pressures of the oceans. There are also those which survive in the rarified atmosphere of the mountain tops. There are a massive range of environments on our very own planet which, until recent science discovered them, no-one would have believed could sustain life. But they clearly do, and there are many other planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet.
You claim that there is no other life anywhere else in the Universe as a point of fact (no doubt because Brown says so). Of course, you know better than all the scientists worldwide & all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it. If we all followed your primitive superstitious mindset we would still be living in caves.
You defined that in order to prove something exists by science it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Well, that much has been done (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution) many times.
You claimed that science has disproved evolution. Science does not disprove anything. That is not the nature of science. Science only PROVES things. Science cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.
You claim that science has proved Creation to be true, yet you also claim that in order to prove something it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Ok. You tell me where the Creation has been repeated under controlled conditions.
Every single one of your claims falls apart under the simplest of logic.
You now try to rewrite the meaning of Genesis when it doesn't suit your way of thinking. If the Sun was included in the Heavens & the Earth bit, why would there also need to be Light as a separate item?
True, as far as we know, nothing can come of nothing, yet you also claim that God came of nothing. You have also claimed that God existed before Time, yet you also claim that Time is only in our minds. Wrong. Time is a definite dimension. An object not only has your 3 dimensions, Length, Breadth & Depth, but it also has When. That is the dimension of time. Time existed long before Man came into being. Time is observable & has been observed to show that it is not constant.
As for there your claim that there isn't any life anywhere else in the Universe, well that is just plain arrogant. Even if your Creationist dream were to be true, who are you to say that he didn't create some other worlds elsewhere in the Universe with similar life on them? Remember that in the context of the size of the Universe, our Solar System is less that the size of a molecule of water in all the oceans on Earth, yet you seem to believe that in all the other Solar Systems out there that there can't be another planet in a similar orbit around a similar sun. You also assume that life has to have exactly the same conditions to survive. Once again, you are wrong. There have been shown to be extremophile life forms on our own planet that survive in the very heat of lava flows, as well as others deep within the Polar Ice Caps. There are also those that thrive under the immense pressures of the oceans. There are also those which survive in the rarified atmosphere of the mountain tops. There are a massive range of environments on our very own planet which, until recent science discovered them, no-one would have believed could sustain life. But they clearly do, and there are many other planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet.
You claim that there is no other life anywhere else in the Universe as a point of fact (no doubt because Brown says so). Of course, you know better than all the scientists worldwide & all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it. If we all followed your primitive superstitious mindset we would still be living in caves.
Science Disproves Evolution
More on Walter Brown's debate offer
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1482169 wrote: You guys just don't get it, do you? Pahu has been tapped out for a while now, he shot his load a long time ago and the only thing he can do is repost his trash. He can do that as long as you engage him about the subject. That's why he keeps asking you questions in an effort to keep the thread active.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
Please explain what you find in my posts that is trash, considering the fact every post from Walt Brown is based on the facts of science.
Stop engaging him if you would like to see the thread get buried. Or spam it.
Please explain what you find in my posts that is trash, considering the fact every post from Walt Brown is based on the facts of science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482241 wrote: Please explain what you find in my posts that is trash, considering the fact every post from Walt Brown is based on the facts of science.
You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide any of the science.
You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide any of the science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482208 wrote: Nope. You missed it.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.
Please explain what you find in my posts that is junk, considering the fact every post from Walt Brown is based on the facts of science.
When we call him on his junk posts, he flounders a bit, and goes away for a bit, and then, when it quiets down, he drops in for another round of claptrap, So we call him on it again.
Please explain what you find in my posts that is junk, considering the fact every post from Walt Brown is based on the facts of science.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482209 wrote: I have dug through your "references", found a number of quotes you Mr Brown uses, and dug up the articles, to find the entire piece from where the quotes came, putting perspective on the statements.
When I have posted some here, you respond with more drivel about evidence-free speculation, and such, or simply ignore the posted info, and offer up something else, equally evidence-free.
It is you who offers evidence-free speculation, based upon the ravings of a self-deluded engineer.
Self deluded? So far you have failed to refute him and the scientists who confirm his conclusions. Perhaps you really know nothing about him. Consider this:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
When I have posted some here, you respond with more drivel about evidence-free speculation, and such, or simply ignore the posted info, and offer up something else, equally evidence-free.
It is you who offers evidence-free speculation, based upon the ravings of a self-deluded engineer.
Self deluded? So far you have failed to refute him and the scientists who confirm his conclusions. Perhaps you really know nothing about him. Consider this:
Walt Brown Education
Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:
Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.
For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Getting a Masters Degree
Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.
He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree
Getting into the Creation Movement
Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement
Seminars and Debates
After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates
Crossroads
He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.
So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads
Learning Geology
Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.
Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology
Geology
Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.
There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology
Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.
His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1482210 wrote:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• Epicurus
God is both able and willing to deal with evil. Two questions you might answer: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• Epicurus
God is both able and willing to deal with evil. Two questions you might answer: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482219 wrote: The same old telephone directory from Who's Who coupled with the stock manifesto of any grotty newsagent is not proof of anything. As with everyone of your claims it is unsubstantiated &, at best taken out of context. Time & time again you have been challenged to provide links to exactly where any of those names were quoted in any of those publications. Not just some name of a person and some name of a publication. That says nothing apart from that you can't back up what you say, which you can't. You clearly blindly follow the prattlings of Walt Brown without question. You don't even ask yourself "Just what is it all these noted scientists have said? What else have they said here?" Why haven't you looked for yourself? Perhaps you have looked - but not found anything. Why not? Simple - because they don't exist. I could include you self same list of scientists & publications to cite all those that have supported the existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants, and it would be just as valid as Brown's claims, with just as much verifiability.
Each name was taken from quotes in Walt Brown's articles. If you want to know where the quote came from, pick a name and go here The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory then go to the index and find the name.
You claimed that science has disproved evolution. Science does not disprove anything. That is not the nature of science. Science only PROVES things. Science cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.
When the facts of science proves the earth is round, doesn't that automatically disprove it is flat?
You claim that science has proved Creation to be true, yet you also claim that in order to prove something it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Ok. You tell me where the Creation has been repeated under controlled conditions.
Every post from Walt Brown meets that requirement.
Every single one of your claims falls apart under the simplest of logic.
You now try to rewrite the meaning of Genesis when it doesn't suit your way of thinking. If the Sun was included in the Heavens & the Earth bit, why would there also need to be Light as a separate item?
It isn't. I am not trying to rewrite the meaning of Genesis, I am just correcting your distortion of it. Verse two says: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Formless and empty are from the Hebrew tohu and bohu, which means chaos and confusion. Also, the word "was" is from the Hebrew hayah, which also means became. Since God is not the author of chaos and confusion, something happened between verses one and two to create that condition. I believe it was when God cast the rebellious angels to Earth. In their tantrum they filled the atmosphere with tons of debris, which blotted out the sun. In verse three God is clearing away the debris and letting the sun shine through.
True, as far as we know, nothing can come of nothing, yet you also claim that God came of nothing.
I never said God came out of nothing. I said He has always existed. You should be more careful in your claims.
You have also claimed that God existed before Time, yet you also claim that Time is only in our minds. Wrong. Time is a definite dimension. An object not only has your 3 dimensions, Length, Breadth & Depth, but it also has When. That is the dimension of time. Time existed long before Man came into being. Time is observable & has been observed to show that it is not constant.
God created everything from nothing. Time is simply a measurement of change. Show us how time is a definite dimension like Length, Breadth & Depth.
As for there your claim that there isn't any life anywhere else in the Universe, well that is just plain arrogant.
No, it is a fact.
Even if your Creationist dream were to be true, who are you to say that he didn't create some other worlds elsewhere in the Universe with similar life on them? Remember that in the context of the size of the Universe, our Solar System is less that the size of a molecule of water in all the oceans on Earth, yet you seem to believe that in all the other Solar Systems out there that there can't be another planet in a similar orbit around a similar sun. You also assume that life has to have exactly the same conditions to survive. Once again, you are wrong. There have been shown to be extremophile life forms on our own planet that survive in the very heat of lava flows, as well as others deep within the Polar Ice Caps. There are also those that thrive under the immense pressures of the oceans. There are also those which survive in the rarified atmosphere of the mountain tops. There are a massive range of environments on our very own planet which, until recent science discovered them, no-one would have believed could sustain life. But they clearly do, and there are many other planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet.
Please name those planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet. It is true that life on Earth is extremely adaptive. God created Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). He didn't say that about any other planet, therefor I assume no other planet in the universe contains life. How is my assumption less valid than yours?
You claim that there is no other life anywhere else in the Universe as a point of fact (no doubt because Brown says so). Of course, you know better than all the scientists worldwide & all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it. If we all followed your primitive superstitious mindset we would still be living in caves.
People have lived in caves since the beginning and are still living in caves. My belief that there is no other life anywhere else in the universe is based on the Bible. I know that all the scientists worldwide and all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it are wasting their time and our money. Notice they have failed.
Each name was taken from quotes in Walt Brown's articles. If you want to know where the quote came from, pick a name and go here The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory then go to the index and find the name.
You claimed that science has disproved evolution. Science does not disprove anything. That is not the nature of science. Science only PROVES things. Science cannot disprove something that doesn't exist.
When the facts of science proves the earth is round, doesn't that automatically disprove it is flat?
You claim that science has proved Creation to be true, yet you also claim that in order to prove something it has to be repeated under controlled conditions. Ok. You tell me where the Creation has been repeated under controlled conditions.
Every post from Walt Brown meets that requirement.
Every single one of your claims falls apart under the simplest of logic.
You now try to rewrite the meaning of Genesis when it doesn't suit your way of thinking. If the Sun was included in the Heavens & the Earth bit, why would there also need to be Light as a separate item?
It isn't. I am not trying to rewrite the meaning of Genesis, I am just correcting your distortion of it. Verse two says: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Formless and empty are from the Hebrew tohu and bohu, which means chaos and confusion. Also, the word "was" is from the Hebrew hayah, which also means became. Since God is not the author of chaos and confusion, something happened between verses one and two to create that condition. I believe it was when God cast the rebellious angels to Earth. In their tantrum they filled the atmosphere with tons of debris, which blotted out the sun. In verse three God is clearing away the debris and letting the sun shine through.
True, as far as we know, nothing can come of nothing, yet you also claim that God came of nothing.
I never said God came out of nothing. I said He has always existed. You should be more careful in your claims.
You have also claimed that God existed before Time, yet you also claim that Time is only in our minds. Wrong. Time is a definite dimension. An object not only has your 3 dimensions, Length, Breadth & Depth, but it also has When. That is the dimension of time. Time existed long before Man came into being. Time is observable & has been observed to show that it is not constant.
God created everything from nothing. Time is simply a measurement of change. Show us how time is a definite dimension like Length, Breadth & Depth.
As for there your claim that there isn't any life anywhere else in the Universe, well that is just plain arrogant.
No, it is a fact.
Even if your Creationist dream were to be true, who are you to say that he didn't create some other worlds elsewhere in the Universe with similar life on them? Remember that in the context of the size of the Universe, our Solar System is less that the size of a molecule of water in all the oceans on Earth, yet you seem to believe that in all the other Solar Systems out there that there can't be another planet in a similar orbit around a similar sun. You also assume that life has to have exactly the same conditions to survive. Once again, you are wrong. There have been shown to be extremophile life forms on our own planet that survive in the very heat of lava flows, as well as others deep within the Polar Ice Caps. There are also those that thrive under the immense pressures of the oceans. There are also those which survive in the rarified atmosphere of the mountain tops. There are a massive range of environments on our very own planet which, until recent science discovered them, no-one would have believed could sustain life. But they clearly do, and there are many other planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet.
Please name those planets that we know of that are less hostile than regions of our own planet. It is true that life on Earth is extremely adaptive. God created Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18). He didn't say that about any other planet, therefor I assume no other planet in the universe contains life. How is my assumption less valid than yours?
You claim that there is no other life anywhere else in the Universe as a point of fact (no doubt because Brown says so). Of course, you know better than all the scientists worldwide & all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it. If we all followed your primitive superstitious mindset we would still be living in caves.
People have lived in caves since the beginning and are still living in caves. My belief that there is no other life anywhere else in the universe is based on the Bible. I know that all the scientists worldwide and all the governments with their space projects investing millions in searching for extraterrestrial life, wherever they may find it are wasting their time and our money. Notice they have failed.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Then he didn't do a very good job of confining us then , did he, seeing as we have the International Space Station constantly manned in orbit, as well as having walked on the moon, as well as countless other Space Missions.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So, which chapter is your next pa(hu)sting going to be? You must surely have pasted the entire works several times over here, and you're still a laughing stock, both here & everywhere else you troll. Everyone has provided multiple sources to substantiate claims against yours. All you provide is more pastings & links to Brown's own website, claiming it to be "Scientific Evidence". Nothing of his is Scientific, nor is it Evidence. It is all mere supposition based on superstition & lies, using out of context quotes & false claims which you can't verify. The simple reason you can't is that Brown doesn't because he can't. The reason he can't verify his claims of support is that it doesn't exist.
Very rarely do you make any postings for yourself, and on those rare occasions when you do everything falls apart. You constantly contradict yourself. You deny the existence of hard evidence & try to offer imaginary scenarios as your own 'evidence'.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So, which chapter is your next pa(hu)sting going to be? You must surely have pasted the entire works several times over here, and you're still a laughing stock, both here & everywhere else you troll. Everyone has provided multiple sources to substantiate claims against yours. All you provide is more pastings & links to Brown's own website, claiming it to be "Scientific Evidence". Nothing of his is Scientific, nor is it Evidence. It is all mere supposition based on superstition & lies, using out of context quotes & false claims which you can't verify. The simple reason you can't is that Brown doesn't because he can't. The reason he can't verify his claims of support is that it doesn't exist.
Very rarely do you make any postings for yourself, and on those rare occasions when you do everything falls apart. You constantly contradict yourself. You deny the existence of hard evidence & try to offer imaginary scenarios as your own 'evidence'.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482242 wrote: You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide any of the science.
The science is provided in every article and confirmed by scientists. Can you show us how they are unscientific. Assertions don't count.
The science is provided in every article and confirmed by scientists. Can you show us how they are unscientific. Assertions don't count.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Grays Harbor County Summary
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482251 wrote: The science is provided in every article and confirmed by scientists. Can you show us how they are unscientific. Assertions don't count.
That's brilliant. Assertions don't count? Your (ie Brown's) entire argument is based on assertions.
You have still not provided one single article by any of that list of names that you like to keep pasting. Provide details of the articles & confirmation exactly where & when they were published, along with a link to it & you might stand a chance of being credible. That doesn't mean just a list random publications.
The reason you don't do it is because you can't. The reason you can't is that they don't exist. If you were able to then you would be constantly pasting them too. As you don't we can only assume that they don't exist.
That's brilliant. Assertions don't count? Your (ie Brown's) entire argument is based on assertions.
You have still not provided one single article by any of that list of names that you like to keep pasting. Provide details of the articles & confirmation exactly where & when they were published, along with a link to it & you might stand a chance of being credible. That doesn't mean just a list random publications.
The reason you don't do it is because you can't. The reason you can't is that they don't exist. If you were able to then you would be constantly pasting them too. As you don't we can only assume that they don't exist.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482251 wrote: The science is provided in every article and confirmed by scientists. Can you show us how they are unscientific. Assertions don't count.
What is provided is comments and speculations, taken completely out of context. You favorite example is that of Dr Hawkings, which has been posted several times in this thread, which is completely out of context, when offered the rest of the statement in its entirety, you simply reject the rest of the information as "Evidence-free speculation" Sorry, bub, but you ave no credibility, and have offered nothing to "refute."
We are STILL waiting for the science.
What is provided is comments and speculations, taken completely out of context. You favorite example is that of Dr Hawkings, which has been posted several times in this thread, which is completely out of context, when offered the rest of the statement in its entirety, you simply reject the rest of the information as "Evidence-free speculation" Sorry, bub, but you ave no credibility, and have offered nothing to "refute."
We are STILL waiting for the science.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482250 wrote: Then he didn't do a very good job of confining us then , did he, seeing as we have the International Space Station constantly manned in orbit, as well as having walked on the moon, as well as countless other Space Missions.
Irrelevant! Besides, the moon and space stations are all in the gravitational influence of Earth and can be considered part of Earth.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So, which chapter is your next pa(hu)sting going to be? You must surely have pasted the entire works several times over here, and you're still a laughing stock, both here & everywhere else you troll.
He who laughs last laughs best. Your use of the word "troll" isn't correct according to the dictionary definition: "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting."
Unless you believe I am engaged in deliberately offensive or provocative online posting. In reality I am sharing facts in the spirit of education.
Everyone has provided multiple sources to substantiate claims against yours.
I wonder why they never share those multiple sources to substantiate claims against mine?
All you provide is more pastings & links to Brown's own website, claiming it to be "Scientific Evidence". Nothing of his is Scientific, nor is it Evidence. It is all mere supposition based on superstition & lies, using out of context quotes & false claims which you can't verify. The simple reason you can't is that Brown doesn't because he can't. The reason he can't verify his claims of support is that it doesn't exist.
Very rarely do you make any postings for yourself, and on those rare occasions when you do everything falls apart. You constantly contradict yourself. You deny the existence of hard evidence & try to offer imaginary scenarios as your own 'evidence'.
Walt Brown's information is based on sound logic based on sound scientific facts confirmed by scientists. No one has ever been able to refute those facts. Admittedly my own comments are not as well founded as his but they make sense to me and I doubt everything is falling apart. Perhaps your real problem is your erroneous pre-conceptions are threatened by the facts of science, so you lash out with evidence free speculation.
Irrelevant! Besides, the moon and space stations are all in the gravitational influence of Earth and can be considered part of Earth.
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So, which chapter is your next pa(hu)sting going to be? You must surely have pasted the entire works several times over here, and you're still a laughing stock, both here & everywhere else you troll.
He who laughs last laughs best. Your use of the word "troll" isn't correct according to the dictionary definition: "a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting."
Unless you believe I am engaged in deliberately offensive or provocative online posting. In reality I am sharing facts in the spirit of education.
Everyone has provided multiple sources to substantiate claims against yours.
I wonder why they never share those multiple sources to substantiate claims against mine?
All you provide is more pastings & links to Brown's own website, claiming it to be "Scientific Evidence". Nothing of his is Scientific, nor is it Evidence. It is all mere supposition based on superstition & lies, using out of context quotes & false claims which you can't verify. The simple reason you can't is that Brown doesn't because he can't. The reason he can't verify his claims of support is that it doesn't exist.
Very rarely do you make any postings for yourself, and on those rare occasions when you do everything falls apart. You constantly contradict yourself. You deny the existence of hard evidence & try to offer imaginary scenarios as your own 'evidence'.
Walt Brown's information is based on sound logic based on sound scientific facts confirmed by scientists. No one has ever been able to refute those facts. Admittedly my own comments are not as well founded as his but they make sense to me and I doubt everything is falling apart. Perhaps your real problem is your erroneous pre-conceptions are threatened by the facts of science, so you lash out with evidence free speculation.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482253 wrote: That's brilliant. Assertions don't count? Your (ie Brown's) entire argument is based on assertions.
Brown's information is based on the facts of science.
You have still not provided one single article by any of that list of names that you like to keep pasting. Provide details of the articles & confirmation exactly where & when they were published, along with a link to it & you might stand a chance of being credible. That doesn't mean just a list random publications.
The reason you don't do it is because you can't. The reason you can't is that they don't exist. If you were able to then you would be constantly pasting them too. As you don't we can only assume that they don't exist.
Go here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/, click index, choose a name from the list and you will find the information you claim does't exist. Here are the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Brown's information is based on the facts of science.
You have still not provided one single article by any of that list of names that you like to keep pasting. Provide details of the articles & confirmation exactly where & when they were published, along with a link to it & you might stand a chance of being credible. That doesn't mean just a list random publications.
The reason you don't do it is because you can't. The reason you can't is that they don't exist. If you were able to then you would be constantly pasting them too. As you don't we can only assume that they don't exist.
Go here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/, click index, choose a name from the list and you will find the information you claim does't exist. Here are the scientists who confirm Brown's conclusions:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1482254 wrote: What is provided is comments and speculations, taken completely out of context. You favorite example is that of Dr Hawkings, which has been posted several times in this thread, which is completely out of context, when offered the rest of the statement in its entirety, you simply reject the rest of the information as "Evidence-free speculation" Sorry, bub, but you ave no credibility, and have offered nothing to "refute."
We are STILL waiting for the science.
The science is contained in each article and confirmed by scientists. The Hawking quote is one that confirms Brown's conclusion: "A beginning suggests a Creator." Hawking agreed when he wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141. That is a true statement. The rest of his statement is evidence free speculation.
We are STILL waiting for the science.
The science is contained in each article and confirmed by scientists. The Hawking quote is one that confirms Brown's conclusion: "A beginning suggests a Creator." Hawking agreed when he wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141. That is a true statement. The rest of his statement is evidence free speculation.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482245 wrote: God is both able and willing to deal with evil. Two questions you might answer: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Why is it that If God is so willing to deal with evil as you say, there is so much of it about. I can't see any evidence of it
Your omnipotent God cannot destroy his own evil creation, the Devil. Why would he make an angel his equal, so powerful that God has no control over his might.
Not a clever move was it.
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Why is it that If God is so willing to deal with evil as you say, there is so much of it about. I can't see any evidence of it
Your omnipotent God cannot destroy his own evil creation, the Devil. Why would he make an angel his equal, so powerful that God has no control over his might.
Not a clever move was it.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482262 wrote: The science is contained in each article and confirmed by scientists. The Hawking quote is one that confirms Brown's conclusion: "A beginning suggests a Creator." Hawking agreed when he wrote: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141. That is a true statement. The rest of his statement is evidence free speculation.
Repeating yourself does not make it more true.
And now I must follow my own advice.
Repeating yourself does not make it more true.
And now I must follow my own advice.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu:
God is both able and willing to deal with evil. Two questions you might answer: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Snowfire;1482266 wrote: Why is it that If God is so willing to deal with evil as you say, there is so much of it about.
Because when we abandon God we tend to fill the gap with evil. You didn't answer my questions: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Your omnipotent God cannot destroy his own evil creation, the Devil. Why would he make an angel his equal, so powerful that God has no control over his might.
Not a clever move was it.
You are misinformed. God did destroy His creation that became evil once with the Flood. I don't believe in a Devil as a person. I believe Satan means the spirit of rebellion against God. Jesus called Peter Satan when he rebelled against God's plan for Him. God is always in control but for the last few thousand years He has allowed us to go our own wayward way and suffer the consequences of our wrong choices. In the near future that will end and the earth will be destroyed by fire, according to His revelation.
God is both able and willing to deal with evil. Two questions you might answer: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Snowfire;1482266 wrote: Why is it that If God is so willing to deal with evil as you say, there is so much of it about.
Because when we abandon God we tend to fill the gap with evil. You didn't answer my questions: What is evil? Is there an absolute measure for evil and good, or is it just your opinion?
I believe that when God created us, some of us went contrary to His will, claiming our way was better than His, so He confined us to Earth and has given us a few thousand years to prove our claim. When we suffer as the result of our wrong choices, He usually lets us suffer so we can learn. Eventually He will personally see to it that we all know the truth and have a chance to apply it.
Your omnipotent God cannot destroy his own evil creation, the Devil. Why would he make an angel his equal, so powerful that God has no control over his might.
Not a clever move was it.
You are misinformed. God did destroy His creation that became evil once with the Flood. I don't believe in a Devil as a person. I believe Satan means the spirit of rebellion against God. Jesus called Peter Satan when he rebelled against God's plan for Him. God is always in control but for the last few thousand years He has allowed us to go our own wayward way and suffer the consequences of our wrong choices. In the near future that will end and the earth will be destroyed by fire, according to His revelation.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I for one find your posts offensive as it is provocative to science & rationality in general. You make outright claims which are totally false, claiming them to be fact. Even the title of the thread (the same title, incidentally, that you spam across countless other forums throughout the internet) is false because, as I have already pointed out, Science does not disprove anything. It only proves things. That is the very nature of Science. Science cannot disprove the non-existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants. If / when, however, one were to be found, that would be proof of its existence. That is what Science is. Therefore even your initial claim that Science has Disproved anything is offensive & deliberately provocative as it is an outright lie & anything consequently posted to further that lie is trolling.
Once again you refer to Brown's own website as 'evidence'. This is not evidence as it is self promotion of falsehoods. Once again you paste the famed telephone directory of names & publications, which is totally meaningless. Once again you refer to Hawking, which has already been challenged & proved to have been totally taken out of context so as to reverse its intended meaning, and then you have the gall to claim that everything the worlds best known leading genius of all time is based on evidence free speculation. That is especially offensive as it derides a particular person by putting yourself above him, when all you can do is to continually paste from a single publication by some nutter who has been widely dismissed both by the Scientific & Creationist world as a charlatan.
If Brown's claims were as marvellous as he claims to be, and if the irrefutable evidence that he claims to exist really had any credibility, wouldn't his name be up there with the greats (not just in your adoring mind, that is), rather than dismissed as the eccentric that he is.
I, for one, have cited many different independent external sources from both Scientific & Creationist sites to support my arguments, as have many others on here & on the other forums you troll, yet the only source you provide is more pastings from Brown's foundless ramblings. Continually pasting the same old stuff is not an argument for anything, regardless of the topic. It is called flooding (which is rather ironic, if you think about it, seeing as how Brown's fairy story is based on the notion of a flood) & flooding, by its nature is also trolling.
Many times you have laid down the definitions of things, only to fall flat on your face by having them turn against you. You have now defined the actions of a troll, and have shown them to accurately define yourself.
Once again you refer to Brown's own website as 'evidence'. This is not evidence as it is self promotion of falsehoods. Once again you paste the famed telephone directory of names & publications, which is totally meaningless. Once again you refer to Hawking, which has already been challenged & proved to have been totally taken out of context so as to reverse its intended meaning, and then you have the gall to claim that everything the worlds best known leading genius of all time is based on evidence free speculation. That is especially offensive as it derides a particular person by putting yourself above him, when all you can do is to continually paste from a single publication by some nutter who has been widely dismissed both by the Scientific & Creationist world as a charlatan.
If Brown's claims were as marvellous as he claims to be, and if the irrefutable evidence that he claims to exist really had any credibility, wouldn't his name be up there with the greats (not just in your adoring mind, that is), rather than dismissed as the eccentric that he is.
I, for one, have cited many different independent external sources from both Scientific & Creationist sites to support my arguments, as have many others on here & on the other forums you troll, yet the only source you provide is more pastings from Brown's foundless ramblings. Continually pasting the same old stuff is not an argument for anything, regardless of the topic. It is called flooding (which is rather ironic, if you think about it, seeing as how Brown's fairy story is based on the notion of a flood) & flooding, by its nature is also trolling.
Many times you have laid down the definitions of things, only to fall flat on your face by having them turn against you. You have now defined the actions of a troll, and have shown them to accurately define yourself.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482296 wrote: I for one find your posts offensive as it is provocative to science & rationality in general.
For example?
You make outright claims which are totally false, claiming them to be fact.
Such as?
Even the title of the thread (the same title, incidentally, that you spam across countless other forums throughout the internet) is false because, as I have already pointed out, Science does not disprove anything. It only proves things. That is the very nature of Science.
As I have already pointed out, if science proves the earth is round, doesn't that disprove it is flat?
Science cannot disprove the non-existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants. If / when, however, one were to be found, that would be proof of its existence. That is what Science is. Therefore even your initial claim that Science has Disproved anything is offensive & deliberately provocative as it is an outright lie & anything consequently posted to further that lie is trolling.
Ah, the final response when all else fails; I am lying!
Once again you refer to Brown's own website as 'evidence'. This is not evidence as it is self promotion of falsehoods.
What are those self promotion of falsehoods?
Once again you paste the famed telephone directory of names & publications, which is totally meaningless.
In what way is a list of scientists confirming Walt Brown's conclusions meaningless?
Once again you refer to Hawking, which has already been challenged & proved to have been totally taken out of context so as to reverse its intended meaning, and then you have the gall to claim that everything the worlds best known leading genius of all time is based on evidence free speculation. That is especially offensive as it derides a particular person by putting yourself above him, when all you can do is to continually paste from a single publication by some nutter who has been widely dismissed both by the Scientific & Creationist world as a charlatan.
Of course you would accuse Brown of being a nut since he provides scientifically valid information that refutes your erroneous pre-conceptions.
The Hawking quote is in complete agreement with Brown's conclusion: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
I did not say everything Hawking says is evidence free speculation. I said that the rest of that particular quote is. Can you support what he wrote using the facts of science?
If Brown's claims were as marvellous as he claims to be, and if the irrefutable evidence that he claims to exist really had any credibility, wouldn't his name be up there with the greats (not just in your adoring mind, that is), rather than dismissed as the eccentric that he is.
Actually he has been so acclaimed in the book: Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World. You can read the chapter devoted to Brown here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
For example?
You make outright claims which are totally false, claiming them to be fact.
Such as?
Even the title of the thread (the same title, incidentally, that you spam across countless other forums throughout the internet) is false because, as I have already pointed out, Science does not disprove anything. It only proves things. That is the very nature of Science.
As I have already pointed out, if science proves the earth is round, doesn't that disprove it is flat?
Science cannot disprove the non-existence of my Fluffy Pink Flying Elephants. If / when, however, one were to be found, that would be proof of its existence. That is what Science is. Therefore even your initial claim that Science has Disproved anything is offensive & deliberately provocative as it is an outright lie & anything consequently posted to further that lie is trolling.
Ah, the final response when all else fails; I am lying!
Once again you refer to Brown's own website as 'evidence'. This is not evidence as it is self promotion of falsehoods.
What are those self promotion of falsehoods?
Once again you paste the famed telephone directory of names & publications, which is totally meaningless.
In what way is a list of scientists confirming Walt Brown's conclusions meaningless?
Once again you refer to Hawking, which has already been challenged & proved to have been totally taken out of context so as to reverse its intended meaning, and then you have the gall to claim that everything the worlds best known leading genius of all time is based on evidence free speculation. That is especially offensive as it derides a particular person by putting yourself above him, when all you can do is to continually paste from a single publication by some nutter who has been widely dismissed both by the Scientific & Creationist world as a charlatan.
Of course you would accuse Brown of being a nut since he provides scientifically valid information that refutes your erroneous pre-conceptions.
The Hawking quote is in complete agreement with Brown's conclusion: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), pp. 140–141.
I did not say everything Hawking says is evidence free speculation. I said that the rest of that particular quote is. Can you support what he wrote using the facts of science?
If Brown's claims were as marvellous as he claims to be, and if the irrefutable evidence that he claims to exist really had any credibility, wouldn't his name be up there with the greats (not just in your adoring mind, that is), rather than dismissed as the eccentric that he is.
Actually he has been so acclaimed in the book: Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World. You can read the chapter devoted to Brown here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 2
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with objects having low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and stay connected for long. [See "Connected Galaxies" and Galaxy Clusters on page 41.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts (d). Some quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas (e). Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory (f).
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values (g). Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
d. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod. Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test, Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
e. Halton M. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies (Berkeley, California: Interstellar Media, 1987).
f. “It clearly took a while after that primordial explosion for clouds of gas to congeal into a form dense enough for stars and quasars to ignite, and the Sky Survey is already prompting astronomers to question some of the assumptions about how that process unfolded [i.e, the big bang theory]. Michael D. Lemonick, “Star Seeker, Discover, November 2001, p. 44.
g. William G. Tifft, “Properties of the Redshift, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December 1991, pp. 396–415.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482333 wrote: Actually he has been so acclaimed in the book: Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World. You can read the chapter devoted to Brown here: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World
Have you actually read it? It says absolutely nothing about his supposed 'scientific' claims. It is mainly about his adolescent history. Furthermore, it is from Brown's own website & can therefore be discounted.
As for the rest of your claptrap, I'm not even going to demean myself by going over it all again. Brown has not provided any evidence for anything, therefore none of his claims are scientific. The names mean nothing when they are not directly linked to where they make the alleged claims. The list of publications mean nothing for the same reason. To have any relevance not only does one have to be matched with the other, but cited to exactly where & when the claims are made. If you can't come up with them, then they simply don't exist & no matter how many times you choose to paste the list the only thing you end up proving is how unsubstantiated your claims are. As with everything else, both you & Brown cherry pick what you want to use & what you want to ignore, as with when Brown deliberately used Hawking's words out of context. When I exposed this (for you hadn't even taken the trouble to find the rest of the quote) you immediately went on the defensive by accusing Hawking of using unsubstantiated supposition when the rest of the quote made what was actually being said to be the opposite of what Brown was making it out to be. Everyone else who saw it recognised the true meaning. I also believe that if the truth be known, then so do you, but you are too rapt in the adoration of your God, the Almighty Brown, to admit it.
As for you latter pasting regarding Red Shift. Is that supposed to be a defence against the pre-emptive link I posted, which debunks the Creationist fakery on the matter by revealing the facts of the matter?
Have you actually read it? It says absolutely nothing about his supposed 'scientific' claims. It is mainly about his adolescent history. Furthermore, it is from Brown's own website & can therefore be discounted.
As for the rest of your claptrap, I'm not even going to demean myself by going over it all again. Brown has not provided any evidence for anything, therefore none of his claims are scientific. The names mean nothing when they are not directly linked to where they make the alleged claims. The list of publications mean nothing for the same reason. To have any relevance not only does one have to be matched with the other, but cited to exactly where & when the claims are made. If you can't come up with them, then they simply don't exist & no matter how many times you choose to paste the list the only thing you end up proving is how unsubstantiated your claims are. As with everything else, both you & Brown cherry pick what you want to use & what you want to ignore, as with when Brown deliberately used Hawking's words out of context. When I exposed this (for you hadn't even taken the trouble to find the rest of the quote) you immediately went on the defensive by accusing Hawking of using unsubstantiated supposition when the rest of the quote made what was actually being said to be the opposite of what Brown was making it out to be. Everyone else who saw it recognised the true meaning. I also believe that if the truth be known, then so do you, but you are too rapt in the adoration of your God, the Almighty Brown, to admit it.
As for you latter pasting regarding Red Shift. Is that supposed to be a defence against the pre-emptive link I posted, which debunks the Creationist fakery on the matter by revealing the facts of the matter?
Science Disproves Evolution
How about an independantly scientific website's review of Brown's claims:
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown | NCSE
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482364 wrote: Have you actually read it? It says absolutely nothing about his supposed 'scientific' claims. It is mainly about his adolescent history. Furthermore, it is from Brown's own website & can therefore be discounted.
As for the rest of your claptrap, I'm not even going to demean myself by going over it all again. Brown has not provided any evidence for anything, therefore none of his claims are scientific. The names mean nothing when they are not directly linked to where they make the alleged claims. The list of publications mean nothing for the same reason. To have any relevance not only does one have to be matched with the other, but cited to exactly where & when the claims are made. If you can't come up with them, then they simply don't exist & no matter how many times you choose to paste the list the only thing you end up proving is how unsubstantiated your claims are. As with everything else, both you & Brown cherry pick what you want to use & what you want to ignore, as with when Brown deliberately used Hawking's words out of context. When I exposed this (for you hadn't even taken the trouble to find the rest of the quote) you immediately went on the defensive by accusing Hawking of using unsubstantiated supposition when the rest of the quote made what was actually being said to be the opposite of what Brown was making it out to be. Everyone else who saw it recognised the true meaning. I also believe that if the truth be known, then so do you, but you are too rapt in the adoration of your God, the Almighty Brown, to admit it.
As for you latter pasting regarding Red Shift. Is that supposed to be a defence against the pre-emptive link I posted, which debunks the Creationist fakery on the matter by revealing the facts of the matter?
More evidence free assertions, accusations and denials. I am sure your erroneous beliefs keep you comfortable.
As for the rest of your claptrap, I'm not even going to demean myself by going over it all again. Brown has not provided any evidence for anything, therefore none of his claims are scientific. The names mean nothing when they are not directly linked to where they make the alleged claims. The list of publications mean nothing for the same reason. To have any relevance not only does one have to be matched with the other, but cited to exactly where & when the claims are made. If you can't come up with them, then they simply don't exist & no matter how many times you choose to paste the list the only thing you end up proving is how unsubstantiated your claims are. As with everything else, both you & Brown cherry pick what you want to use & what you want to ignore, as with when Brown deliberately used Hawking's words out of context. When I exposed this (for you hadn't even taken the trouble to find the rest of the quote) you immediately went on the defensive by accusing Hawking of using unsubstantiated supposition when the rest of the quote made what was actually being said to be the opposite of what Brown was making it out to be. Everyone else who saw it recognised the true meaning. I also believe that if the truth be known, then so do you, but you are too rapt in the adoration of your God, the Almighty Brown, to admit it.
As for you latter pasting regarding Red Shift. Is that supposed to be a defence against the pre-emptive link I posted, which debunks the Creationist fakery on the matter by revealing the facts of the matter?
More evidence free assertions, accusations and denials. I am sure your erroneous beliefs keep you comfortable.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482403 wrote: More evidence free assertions, accusations and denials. I am sure your erroneous beliefs keep you comfortable.
Hardly evidence free, especially when compared to Brown's speculation & outright lies.
Erroneously in agreement with 99.9% of the worldwide scientific community, of course. Yes - I'm quite comfortable with that.
Hardly evidence free, especially when compared to Brown's speculation & outright lies.
Erroneously in agreement with 99.9% of the worldwide scientific community, of course. Yes - I'm quite comfortable with that.
Science Disproves Evolution
Big Bang? 3
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation (h).
h. “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin. Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning? Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33.
“Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it. Ibid., p. 25.
“History also shows that some BB [big bang] cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures. William C. Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire, Physics Essays, Vol. 10, June 1997, pp. 370–379.
“What’s more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. Eric J. Lerner et al., “Bucking the Big Bang, New Scientist, Vol. 182, 22 May 2004, p. 20. www.cosmologystatement.org]
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
PMI (Pasting Mode Ignored)
You really should be banned from this forum for Flooding. To paste once would be acceptable. To repeatedly paste the same garbage time & time again is not acceptable. Even if it were valid material, such repetition would not be acceptable.
You really should be banned from this forum for Flooding. To paste once would be acceptable. To repeatedly paste the same garbage time & time again is not acceptable. Even if it were valid material, such repetition would not be acceptable.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1482846 wrote: PMI (Pasting Mode Ignored)
You really should be banned from this forum for Flooding. To paste once would be acceptable. To repeatedly paste the same garbage time & time again is not acceptable. Even if it were valid material, such repetition would not be acceptable.
Repetition is sometimes necessary to get the message across. Probably your real problem is not the repetition but the scientifically valid content, which refutes your erroneous evidence free pre-conceptions!
You really should be banned from this forum for Flooding. To paste once would be acceptable. To repeatedly paste the same garbage time & time again is not acceptable. Even if it were valid material, such repetition would not be acceptable.
Repetition is sometimes necessary to get the message across. Probably your real problem is not the repetition but the scientifically valid content, which refutes your erroneous evidence free pre-conceptions!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1482847 wrote: Repetition is sometimes necessary to get the message across. Probably your real problem is not the repetition but the scientifically valid content, which refutes your erroneous evidence free pre-conceptions!
They are not valid, scientifically, or any other way, and no matter of repetition is going to change that.
You have demonstrated on many occasions that you are of very limited intelligence in many different ways - not least of all by having openly admitted it.
When there is an argument about an issue you do not argue the matter giving sound reasons for your thinking. Instead you paste the same old stuff.
When challenged to show the evidence for the falsehoods you paste, you paste the same old stuff.
When presented with evidence to show Brown up for the charlatan he is you refute it & paste the same old stuff.
You don't have the intelligence to form a rational argument for yourself. Instead you resort to pasting. It's all you are intellectually capable of. No doubt you could train a chimp to do such a task. Or is this what has happened. I suspect I must be discussing this with Brown's pet chimp.
They are not valid, scientifically, or any other way, and no matter of repetition is going to change that.
You have demonstrated on many occasions that you are of very limited intelligence in many different ways - not least of all by having openly admitted it.
When there is an argument about an issue you do not argue the matter giving sound reasons for your thinking. Instead you paste the same old stuff.
When challenged to show the evidence for the falsehoods you paste, you paste the same old stuff.
When presented with evidence to show Brown up for the charlatan he is you refute it & paste the same old stuff.
You don't have the intelligence to form a rational argument for yourself. Instead you resort to pasting. It's all you are intellectually capable of. No doubt you could train a chimp to do such a task. Or is this what has happened. I suspect I must be discussing this with Brown's pet chimp.
Science Disproves Evolution
Some folks enjoy living in a magic and make believe world. Such are the anti evolutionists. I suppose if it makes them happy they can stick to it I simply cannt follow the illogic.