Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by Methuselah

Originally posted by Methuselah
intelligent? no just more advanced, intelligence is not directly related to our advancement in technology or medical practices. If we were on an intellectual incline... then we shouldnt have this many problems in the world. since all are very solvable.

We're a lot more intelligent. If you actually look at the standardized intelligence tests that we use...they actually have to reset them every so often. They artificially take the median score and reset it to 100...based on that alone the average IQ of people has raised significantly within just the time of the introduction of IQ tests. What's more, there's a direct link between IQ and exposure to information as well as nutrition. We have better nutrition and better exposure to knowledge than at any point in history. Hell, I've been exposed to more science than even Isaac Newton.

A lot of those problems have to do with things that are actually unrelated to intellect. Intellect alone doesn't solve stubborn politics or resource issues.

knowledgeable? ah yes, but like i said above, without the intellect to go with that... we are still dumb.

Not really. We're quite good.

healthier? haha we may have found proactive practices to take part in to sustain a comfortable lifestyle but healthier? seriously? our lack in intellect has caused us to bypass many things that can be keeping us in a healthier state... for example: bread used to go bad every few days, until we took out the ingredients that caused it to go bad. this caused bread to last way longer thus saving the producer and the consumer money - but now heart attacks are much more common. thats just one example, there are plenty more out there. just gotta look in the right places.

Maybe you should learn to statistics. You do realize that for the last 50 years we've gotten a thousand times better at gathering data on these things, right? There's really no information to suggest that the rate of heart attacks has gone up that much in comparison to the increase in life span. It would make sense to say that heart attack rates go up when people get older...

Oh, and the human life span has more than doubled in the last 150 years....so...yeah....

aware? dude I live under a rock and can tell you that America by themselves are the most wool eyed people in the world. aware.. lol i laughed out loud at that..

Anecdotal evidence much? To paraphrase Sam Harris: You and I have never met anyone with as narrow a view of the universe as someone who lived in the first century.

Think about it this way...we both realize that the world is an oblate spheroid that is travelling at insanely high speeds around a much larger, incredibly hot nuclear fusion reaction. We realize that the universe is far bigger than any human mind can properly wrap their heads around, and we realize that the smallest scale of the universe is just as insane. We understand that thought process and emotions are located in the brain, we know that disease is mostly caused by little organisms too small for us to see, and we actually understand the biology of where babies come from.

I can go on...

we chose to live our lives with this so called awareness you speak of yes we wonder why our world is so eff'd up... its called lack of awareness. --- otherwise we would know, and we would be healthy enough and smart enough to actually do something about it.

And the world was significantly more fornicated a hundred years ago...two hundred years ago...three hundred years ago...going back and back...but it's all to proportion. Imagine if the crusades had been fought with modern population figures and automatic weapons. Imagine if they had an air force.

We have fewer religious wars than we used to. We have fewer wars in general.

peaceful? well, i can see it from that perspective but I would go with the term tolerance. this world is not at peace, its simply tolerant, holding their tongues and keep their swords to their sides since we really dont know what else to do and all else has failed.

Really? Because last time I checked, Europe wasn't engaged in religious wars all that much anymore. We don't have as many wars as we used to. Oh, and we actually have nations doing their best to prevent massive outbreaks of violence.

Genesis 1 (Light) John 1 (Word/Wave) Light is a duality of particle and wave. All particles have an associated wave. In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (Matter).

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


But when we look into Genesis we see 2 different creation myths that do not match each other. The order of creation is different and the creation of man is different as well. Is this part of the duality being discussed here?

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Posting this a third time? I've already addressed it. Please, tell me where the particles come in and give me an example of someone who came up with the idea based on the idea prior to the secular discovery.

There are several web pages that are devoted to this topic. Perspective is all that is required.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

But when we look into Genesis we see 2 different creation myths that do not match each other. The order of creation is different and the creation of man is different as well. Is this part of the duality being discussed here?

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You mean cognitive dissonance and rationalizing the irrational, right? I'm sorry, but there isn't a single good explanation for the two different Genesis myths beyond the documentary hypothesis...namely that they are two separate stories written by people with two entirely different schools of thought. Hell, Genesis 2 seems to predate Genesis 1 in terms of authorship. They even refer to the deity in two different manners.

A train engineer argues with his friend living next to the track that the train whistle changes pitch. The engineer says, "I'm sorry, but there isn't a single good explanation for the pitch of the train whistle changing. I hear it everyday and it stays the same." In the end, they are both right. The whistle changes pitch by understanding the excluded middle argument. The Doppler Effect explains the inconsistency.

In the Genesis account, it does no good to say you have the answer to what took place in the beginning with only one micro perspective to draw from. Perspective clarifies over time. Don't box yourself into thinking the two quarter inch holes in your head are enough to properly see the ocean of light that constitutes reality. This is your answer. LINK You can verify what James Allen says by your own experience. You can even verify what he says by testing his word. Love your neighbor and good will follow. Hate the world and the shadow overtakes you. Love God and He reveals the light. Hate God and you only see the shadow.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You mean cognitive dissonance and rationalizing the irrational, right? I'm sorry, but there isn't a single good explanation for the two different Genesis myths beyond the documentary hypothesis...namely that they are two separate stories written by people with two entirely different schools of thought. Hell, Genesis 2 seems to predate Genesis 1 in terms of authorship. They even refer to the deity in two different manners.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


I don't hate or love this 'god' thing, I merely treat it in the same way I treat unicorns or pixies, I really am apathetic. Now, people don't go around trying to claim that a bad interpretation of science proves pixies or unicorns, so I'm more active in engaging against those things.

Of course, you're providing nothing new here. Experience is not a proof of anything. Why? Well, it's flawed. You can actually trick people's experience. Psychology students do it all the time as part of their studies. So do neurology students. It's well documented that human perception is flawed.

To swipe a line from Nietzsche, we only need to look at an insane asylum.

Light is the particle. Logos is the information that animates the light to form. Your proof will come from science as confirmed in the Bible. The Higgs Boson is the last particle and associated wave to be found according to our current theory of quantum physics. As one of the researchers stated, it will be seen as streaming data form another dimension. I wish I could give you the quote from the CERN website, but it has since been taken off. Nothing in reality is animated apart from information. This is LOGOS. Light, both particle and wave, animated by information in the form of wave.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I don't hate or love this 'god' thing, I merely treat it in the same way I treat unicorns or pixies, I really am apathetic. Now, people don't go around trying to claim that a bad interpretation of science proves pixies or unicorns, so I'm more active in engaging against those things.

Of course, you're providing nothing new here. Experience is not a proof of anything. Why? Well, it's flawed. You can actually trick people's experience. Psychology students do it all the time as part of their studies. So do neurology students. It's well documented that human perception is flawed.

To swipe a line from Nietzsche, we only need to look at an insane asylum.

hmm I was going to write a witty reply, but it seems you were chewed up and spat out on the very first page, well..thanks for the read guys.

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Light is the particle.

And yet it's both a particle and a way. You're just reading in that post-hoc rationalization that suits you.

Logos is the information that animates the light to form.

Citation needed.

Your proof will come from science as confirmed in the Bible. The Higgs Boson is the last particle and associated wave to be found according to our current theory of quantum physics. As one of the researchers stated, it will be seen as streaming data form another dimension. I wish I could give you the quote from the CERN website, but it has since been taken off. Nothing in reality is animated apart from information. This is LOGOS. Light, both particle and wave, animated by information in the form of wave.

And yet you're just reading something that was definitely not there in the book. These are people that (and I hate to have to repeat myself) thought that the Earth was a flat disc which had a solid dome on it that had little lights and big lights in it that moved through the dome.

Science has not confirmed the Bible. It has shown us that the Earth is round (hell, that one we got before Christianity), that the Earth goes around the Sun, that the Sun and Moon predate plants, that illness isn't caused by sin and demons, etc.

reply to post by edsinger



"biblelife" is a religuous site, thus not a basis for proper scientific research.. This post is just another attempt at "proving" that someone's belief is more than that. A belief is a belief.
If someone believes something, that is fine, but at the same time, if others don't agree with this belief than that must be accepted as a valid point of view. There is no need for a religuous believer to ram his beliefs down one's throat as fact or the truth.
Relying on a book of lies, inaccuracies and fallacies as the "gospel" truth is a fallacy.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


So all it takes is a little perspective to reconcile to different orders of creation? I believe the term you are looking for is "avoidance." You avoid addressing the issue that Genesis offers 2 very different tales of creation.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
A train engineer argues with his friend living next to the track that the train whistle changes pitch. The engineer says, "I'm sorry, but there isn't a single good explanation for the pitch of the train whistle changing. I hear it everyday and it stays the same." In the end, they are both right. The whistle changes pitch by understanding the excluded middle argument. The Doppler Effect explains the inconsistency.

You're right, each man would hear something different. But if either one of the actually repeated the conditions under which the other heard the whistle, they would hear the same phenomenon. If the engineer stayed at his friend's house, he would hear the Doppler effect. If the friend rode in the train with engineer, he would hear no change in the pitch of the whistle. Each observer, when repeating the conditions of the other observes the same evidence on an objective basis. Thanks for providing an example of something that would constitute objective evidence, even though you've failed to provide objective evidence itself in any of your posts.

You have answered your own comment. We are all riding the train. We are all friends and neighbors. The Bible says, "Test all things. Cling to what is good." Bias, judgment and doubt cannot reveal truth.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
A train engineer argues with his friend living next to the track that the train whistle changes pitch. The engineer says, "I'm sorry, but there isn't a single good explanation for the pitch of the train whistle changing. I hear it everyday and it stays the same." In the end, they are both right. The whistle changes pitch by understanding the excluded middle argument. The Doppler Effect explains the inconsistency.

You're right, each man would hear something different. But if either one of the actually repeated the conditions under which the other heard the whistle, they would hear the same phenomenon. If the engineer stayed at his friend's house, he would hear the Doppler effect. If the friend rode in the train with engineer, he would hear no change in the pitch of the whistle. Each observer, when repeating the conditions of the other observes the same evidence on an objective basis. Thanks for providing an example of something that would constitute objective evidence, even though you've failed to provide objective evidence itself in any of your posts.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
You have answered your own comment. We are all riding the train. We are all friends and neighbors. The Bible says, "Test all things. Cling to what is good." Bias, judgment and doubt cannot reveal truth.

Some of us have the good sense to get off the train to hear what the neighbor is hearing instead of just listening to the conductor. If we listened to the conductor, scientific exploration of our universe to look for naturalistic explanations would have halted centuries, maybe even millennia, ago.

The theory that man evolved from a single cell organism is simply impossible and here's why:
The shortest period of time measurable is not the seconds on a clockface or even parts thereof. It's the time it would take for light to travel the shortest possible distance between two particles on a subatomic level, which naturally is millions of a second.
Now, we now know that the earth is about 4.7 billion years old. Take for arguments sake the number of one millionths of a second in a single year and multiply it with 4 billion. You will get a ridiculously large number
Now think about a single gene. Each single gene contains thousands of complex bits of data, each which had to be acquired by mutation. The problem is, the smallest little worm on earth today could not have evolved from a single cell organism in four billion years even if a mutation occurred every one of those millions of a second.
The minimal number of genes needed to support cell function and reproduction is 256. Say our little worm had a thousand. The human genome consists of between thirty and fifty thousand. Even if the earth was twenty billion years old it would not have been enough time for the little worm to evolve from a single cell, let alone a human being.
Next, the fossil record. To this day not a single complete fossil record exists or have ever existed for one living

reply to post by deons27

organism. Scientists give various reasons for this, like the missing fossils will still be found or the fact that fossils are extremely scarce. Fair enough, but not even one complete record, ever?? In the Cambrian period the first complex organisms just suddenly appeared, thousand of species, in a period of more or less five million years. A hundred new Phylae were discovered. Today only thirty remains, the rest extinct. No new Phylae has since appeared, or evolved. There exists no scientific evidence that can prove that some of the fossils that they say represents a species in the different stages of its evolution are not in fact those of a different species altogether.
Just because they wish to put their name to it and wish for it does not make it so.

Originally posted by deons27
The theory that man evolved from a single cell organism is simply impossible and here's why:

It only took you 9 months.

We have 6 billion nucleotides and about 25,000 genes. The way you are attempting to calculate it, which is extremely misguided and somewhat troubling, all that is required is about 1.25 nucleotides added per year, and that's just for one individual, disregarding sexual reproduction.

reply to post by deons27


You're doing the math wrong.

Okay, so let's take six 6-sided dice. Now, try rolling them until you get all 6's. How long could that take? Well...6x6x6x6x6x6 = 46,656...so you might be rolling all day before it happens.

Now, try it differently, try it in the way that evolution does this sort of thing. Roll your first set and set aside any 6 that pops up. Now roll the remaining dice. Repeat this process until you have six 6's...and it won't take you more than 10 minutes.