How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


Actually...to be more specific...Singularity refers to the condition or state of either a part of our Universal Space/Time or either one part of our Space/Time Dimensionality being in a ONE DIMENSIONAL STATE.

Gravity is in fact an Expression of One Dimensionality...that being that all points of Time and Space would be at a single point and in the localised cases of a Black Hole created Singularity...the immense Mass of a Black Hole is capable of causing a Limited Singularity as it applies to it's effect on all Matter and Space/Time in the Universe.

Our Universal Reality and all Matter and Quantum Energy that exists in it has a minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States. Matter and Energy cannot exist in less than 10 or 11 Dimensional States and there is perhaps even more.

Each one of these Dimensional States is interconnected to all the others and what we know as Gravity is simply any amount of Masses ability to warp Space/Time to an extent that is a ratio to the amount of Mass. This Space/Time warping is in effect an Expression of One Dimensionality.

When enough mass is present there is a threshold that can be crossed and at this point Space/Time will cause a Singularity that will through Gravitic Compression gather all the incredible amount of Mass that caused such a singularity to exist at a Single Point.

Such Gravitic Compression is NOT A FORCE but in effect the changing of Space/Time Dimensionality from a Minimum 10 or 11 Dimensional States to a One Dimensional State.

This Gravitic Compression is not limited in just effecting Matter but also Energy as well as Space/Time. This is so because of the fact that Gravity is not a force as well as that neither is Gravitic Compression as it is in effect a One Dimensional Expression and in the case of a Black Hole....a Singularity.

Split Infinity




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prime80
The Different Types Of Evolution

The following types of Evolution are described:

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. OrganicEvolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

6. Micro-Evolution: The variation within kindsof species.


You know, you could go to better information source than Dr Dino. He's a first order wackadoodle who has enough problems with paying his employees and his taxes. Who else would start out a doctorate dissertation with, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I’ve been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time."

You know, there's evolution the common noun ("a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding"), and there's the Theory of Evolution. The latter applies only to definition 5 and 6 above combined; the others are just using the common noun. In fact, I'd never heard of "Organic Evolution" before Kent expounded on it; it has always been biogenesis to me.


Observations about the different types of Evolution

- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.


No; aspects of many of these science corners have been observed. There are reports weekly about advances in the microbiology of abiogenesis. The Cosmic evolution is ongoing; it didn't end after the first 6 or 6 million days, and observations explicating the ongoing (and stretching into the past, as the Speed of Light is a time machine).
Stellar and planetary evolution is burgeoning with the daily discovery of new planets around stars in our galaxy. And that dichotomy between observation vs historical science is just rubbish.


- The other 5 types of Evolution are part of the Theory of Evolution.


Bull. Only by your definition, perhaps. Not by the definition of any scientists working in biology. By that definition no one could possibly be an expert in all the fields combined, and several of the types have no connection other than that they impinge on some aspect or another of Genesis chapter 1.


- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.


Unfortunately for your thesis, that is incorrect. Your definition of macro evolution has been studied in action in at least a dozen well documented cases. Stellar and planetary evolution is being studied in multiple concurrent stages thanks to Hubble and other new telescopes.


- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.


Your definition, perhaps. Thankfully, science aren't limited by that.


- They are in fact a belief system, taught in countless schools and universities in the world.

- Sadly they are taught as fact, even though the factual content of the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved or disproved, since nobody was present, and these beliefs cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.


Ludicrous. Science doesn't teach evolution as a fact, it observes biological evolution (see definition above) as a fact. It doesn't teach the Theory of Evolution as a fact but rather as a theory, binding together the observed evolution along with a hoard of other observations into a coherent whole, making predictions and explaining previously unconnected facts. How can you hope to argue about this when you cannot use the terms properly?


If you believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, that's your choice. But don't go around presenting it as fact.


It is presented as science. The facts are the things you observe, that even the two of us can agree on when we have settled problems in definitions and meanings. We can differ on theory, because theory is always conjecturable - if you have alternative evidence. Do you? You haven't demonstrated it so far. Until then, leave your commandments at home.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
So I'm actually taking a microbiology course right now, and this video is debunked in CHAPTER ONE!
lmao.
No bacteria grow because they package the peanut butter with sterile means and remove air. This was actually a big problem 200 years ago because they didn't do these things and things DID GROW, but they grow because it wasn't sterile and there was air, the bacteria just multiply, they don't pop out out of nothing. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE used to think life just sprung up on its own. It was the scientists who proved they do NOT just sprout up. Scientists do not believe life just sprouts up like they are claiming, we believe it takes very specific conditions, over the course of a long time period.

The people in that video are morons. This is literally microbiology 101.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.




If the singularity is the source of all matter after the Big Bang. It must have been the source that caused the light as it expanded with a enormous force.


It's not the direct source of light here on Earth though, but it's a result of the big bang like everything is. God supposedly created light after the other stuff, so the big bang must have already happened and Earth, along with life had already formed. Our sun, which is crucial for life on Earth, formed before Earth did.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


When God said: let there be light. God didn't create the sun. God formed the singularity.

The reason you say that God created the light after all the other stuff. Is because you have been a victim of false teaching, or a preacher who doesn't know what he / she is preaching.

A lot of bible believers don't understand genesis chapter 1. verse; 1
Genesis chapter 1. verse; 1. clearly state that: In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. And in that order.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.




If the singularity is the source of all matter after the Big Bang. It must have been the source that caused the light as it expanded with a enormous force.


It's not the direct source of light here on Earth though, but it's a result of the big bang like everything is. God supposedly created light after the other stuff, so the big bang must have already happened and Earth, along with life had already formed. Our sun, which is crucial for life on Earth, formed before Earth did.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


When God said: let there be light. God didn't create the sun. God formed the singularity.

The reason you say that God created the light after all the other stuff. Is because you have been a victim of false teaching, or a preacher who doesn't know what he / she is preaching.

A lot of bible believers don't understand genesis chapter 1. verse; 1
Genesis chapter 1. verse; 1. clearly state that: In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. And in that order.



Let's just assume that what you say is true for a second. Evolution and the natural formation of life is unaffected.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.


Ummmm. . . yeah, that is what theory means. You see, this is how science works: First you have a Hypothesis, then a Theory and once that theory is rigorously tested again and again it becomes a Law. They teach us this in second grade- along with the scientific method. The Theory of evolution has never been declared a Law. The bottom line is that the evolutionist has as much Faith in his theory as the Creationist does in his creator. (And nobody believe please that I say creation is fact by my previous statements. There is a lot we don't know yet about a lot of things.)

Maybe you should get your facts straight before attacking someone. Although I always laugh to myself when someone tries to make someone else look bad and then winds up showing their own ignorance.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by SpearMint
 





The singularity isn't the source of the light, the singularity was the source of all the matter in the universe after the big bang. It took hundreds of millions of years for the first stars to form and around 9 billion years for our sun to form, the source of our light.

I don't think religion does explain where light came from, or anything at all. "God did it" isn't an explanation. I'm sure if scientists settled for "physics did it" you wouldn't accept that as an explanation.




If the singularity is the source of all matter after the Big Bang. It must have been the source that caused the light as it expanded with a enormous force.


It's not the direct source of light here on Earth though, but it's a result of the big bang like everything is. God supposedly created light after the other stuff, so the big bang must have already happened and Earth, along with life had already formed. Our sun, which is crucial for life on Earth, formed before Earth did.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)


When God said: let there be light. God didn't create the sun. God formed the singularity.

The reason you say that God created the light after all the other stuff. Is because you have been a victim of false teaching, or a preacher who doesn't know what he / she is preaching.

A lot of bible believers don't understand genesis chapter 1. verse; 1
Genesis chapter 1. verse; 1. clearly state that: In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth. And in that order.



Let's just assume that what you say is true for a second. Evolution and the natural formation of life is unaffected.


You should not take my words as fact. But use it to improve and to expand your knowledge. You might come up with a very important clue that can help me out.

If what i say is true everything have evolved naturally through the expansion of the singularity.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413



Maybe you should get your facts straight before attacking someone. Although I always laugh to myself when someone tries to make someone else look bad and then winds up showing their own ignorance.

Speak for yourself. Your understanding of hypothesis, theory, law is severely lacking.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by SpearMint


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.


Ummmm. . . yeah, that is what theory means. You see, this is how science works: First you have a Hypothesis, then a Theory and once that theory is rigorously tested again and again it becomes a Law. They teach us this in second grade- along with the scientific method. The Theory of evolution has never been declared a Law. The bottom line is that the evolutionist has as much Faith in his theory as the Creationist does in his creator. (And nobody believe please that I say creation is fact by my previous statements. There is a lot we don't know yet about a lot of things.)

Maybe you should get your facts straight before attacking someone. Although I always laugh to myself when someone tries to make someone else look bad and then winds up showing their own ignorance.




A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."


You get your facts straight.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


I think you may have the scientific term "theory" mixed with common jargons term for theory. in science, it is not an educated guess. That is reserved for the second step in the scientific method, the hypothesis ( first being observation). Theories come after data analysis and is based off of results. Yes, theories are constantly expanded upon and amended, but in no way does this invalidate it. Take germ theory and and atomic theory. Each have been expanded upon over the years. Science, believe it or not, is in the business of proving itself wrong (or it should be). Theories that seem to hold water are those that seem to be difficult to prove otherwise (like gravitational theory), because our understanding of our world changes with our perceptions (take geocentric vs heliocentric theory) Very little science is considered concrete. That's actually the beauty of it.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Shenten because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
Warning, this video may contain nuts...




Yeah I have no idea how anyone can argue what they are trying to argue in that video with a straight face. It's just so insane it's hard to even tell if they are being serious. It just goes to show the absurd logic that creationists will latch onto.

Even if someone were to somehow be lucky enough to purchase a tub of peanut which contained new life, you'd need a freaking electron microscope just to see it. Who knows maybe some of us have eaten new life without even knowing it.

These idiots never think past the first step in their stupid ideas do they?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Yay for spontaneous regeneration. Poof! There is suddenly a mouse in my cubbard! Crackers must give birth to Murids.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by SpearMint


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.


Ummmm. . . yeah, that is what theory means. You see, this is how science works: First you have a Hypothesis, then a Theory and once that theory is rigorously tested again and again it becomes a Law. They teach us this in second grade- along with the scientific method. The Theory of evolution has never been declared a Law. The bottom line is that the evolutionist has as much Faith in his theory as the Creationist does in his creator. (And nobody believe please that I say creation is fact by my previous statements. There is a lot we don't know yet about a lot of things.)


No, no, no. Start from the beginning:

fact - a fact is an observation made with the senses. It is a true fact is everyone, particularly dispassionate observers, can agree on what exactly is being observed.

theory - a theory is guess about why an explicit group of facts all behave in the way they do. It is built upon an abstraction of the facts, and on inductive logic. Because it is based on induction, it can never be determined to be truth in a closed sense, but rather only in a statistical sense. It can itself evolve (!) by incorporating more facts within its explanatory fold, as relativity did for gravity, and even by dying when facts are discovered which should be incorporated but cannot. Thus lumeniferous ether died as a media for electromagnetism. A theory gains power from incorporating a large body of facts, from explaining newly investigated facts, and in predicting future facts. One other thing a theory always has is the ability to imagine facts that would, if found true, falsify the theory. Most religious principles fail science on this ground.

BTW: it is not "cheating" for a theory to be expanded to incorporate new facts, as an alternative to declaring the theory dead. Thus it is not difficult to explain the Polish tetrapod footprints which showed a tetrapod 20 million years before evidence had seen one before; some simple re-arrangements accommodated the new find, and the Theory of Evolution proceeds unchanged. Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is exactly such an adjustment to the theory.

hypothesis - a weak theory, put forward to begin the fact gathering process, and to determine its bounds as well as its power.

law - In science a law is a short, pithy aspect of a theory; Kepler's three laws have become aspects of Newton's Theory of Gravity. They are usually couched in mathematical expressions, the epitome of pith, as in the law of gravity, the succinct mathematical definition of gravity's force. There is no body which can establish scientific law; that is done by the theory backing it up.

experiment - an organized method to make explicit observations which have power, the ability to be repeated and still yield the same results, even by completely unconnected experimenters. Experiments help determine what the facts are, in greater and greater detail.


Maybe you should get your facts straight before attacking someone. Although I always laugh to myself when someone tries to make someone else look bad and then winds up showing their own ignorance.


Ummmmm. Yeah.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Out of fairness, evolution hasn't been successful in explaining the origin of life or the differentiation of species, so something else is going on at the same time, some sort of formative causation according to ideal forms.

So I think it's BOTH evolution AND creation by intelligent design.

I don't understand why this idea isn't given greater consideration ie: that it's not necessarily an either/or (evolution OR creation) phenomenon, the occurrence of life, but some sort of unfathomably mysterious, even ineffable combination of BOTH processes at work, whereby the process itself arises not from an upward causation ie: from particles up, but as a downward causation from a first/last cause in eternity, as an intelligent subtraction from the unmanifest infinite potential of the absolute Godhead ie: by intention.

It's both an outrageous, and an entirely reasonable proposition, imho.

While the debate rages on and on, so I just thought I'd try to raise my hand here in the class with another idea that can be more effectively argued, than either of the two sides of the creation/evolution argument.

It's hilarious in a way..



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
All I know is, ( if I am honest ) . The closest looking thing to me around is a monkey. So logic would suggest I have some relationship to it. Maybe not first cousins, but still related.

My ego would of course like to think I am from a slightly better background.

But until I see a photo of God. I have to use my brain and go with the obvious.

Note; I trust my own intellect more than that guys in the video.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
All I know is, ( if I am honest ) . The closest looking thing to me around is a monkey. So logic would suggest I have some relationship to it. Maybe not first cousins, but still related.

My ego would of course like to think I am from a slightly better background.

But until I see a photo of God. I have to use my brain and go with the obvious.

The spirit and the qualia of our human experience tells me otherwise.

What to you is "the obvious".. ? Curious.


"I am not an animal, I am a human being!"
~ The Elephant Man.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
All I know is, ( if I am honest ) . The closest looking thing to me around is a monkey. So logic would suggest I have some relationship to it. Maybe not first cousins, but still related.

My ego would of course like to think I am from a slightly better background.

But until I see a photo of God. I have to use my brain and go with the obvious.

The spirit and the qualia of our human experience tells me otherwise.

What to you is "the obvious".. ? Curious.


"I am not an animal, I am a human being!"
~ The Elephant Man.


But your "spirit" exists inside your own head, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

The obvious, if you pay attention and accept the evidence, is that we are closely related to other primates and share a common ancestor with the apes you see today.

Humans are animals, the most intelligent animals on Earth. Just because we are intelligent and have opposable thumbs doesn't mean we're not an animal.
edit on 29-1-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Evolution is a flawed theory which is accepted as fact.


...and the Bible is accepted as fact because the Bible says it's fact.

Using circular reasoning to prove the truthfulness of an assertion (Bible) doesn't exactly exemplify you as a critical thinker.

How do we trust your critique against science when you've already committed such a critical error in reason.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by SpearMint


I can't tell if you're joking or being serious. Just because the word "theory" is used, it doesn't mean it's just a theory, that is not what it means in the scientific world.


Ummmm. . . yeah, that is what theory means. You see, this is how science works: First you have a Hypothesis, then a Theory and once that theory is rigorously tested again and again it becomes a Law. They teach us this in second grade- along with the scientific method.



A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment".
Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

I recommend burning down the school you went to second grade at.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join