It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 11
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Why do you post the exact same thing over and over, I presented my evidence and opinions ,so the readers can decide. But I will not get into he said she said repetitious posts.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by flyingfish
 


You think I dont know anything about science,....By 10 I had built my own chemistry set and electrolysis system
by 11 I made a digital lock for my room door
by 12 I was generating hydrogen by scraping zinc off of our trash can and putting it in acid
by13 I had my whole house bugged
built my own jam box
By 19 had degree in electronic engineering and built a magnetic levitator and 100s of other inventions and experiments.


What were you doing at 10 years old?????

Be careful what words you use , you never know what ones you will have to EAT.


Okay I'll ge careful, I did not realize you're such a cunning linguist and master debater, with superior accolades in the foundations of science.

The problem is if this is as good as it gets in a battle of wits I think you might be unarmed.
There are certain things you should learn about how theories are valid.

The definition of evidence.

How the peer review process works and what and means and just as importantly what it doesn't mean.

Trying to tell someone how smart you are is not scientific evidence. It just shows you have no argument and you should take your ball, go home and cry.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Barcs
 


Flash frozen seems reasonable ,Ice in space is -400 and when it fell it lowered the temp on the surface to -150 instantly wiping out the dinosaurs and everything else, the oil we burn comes from all living things at the time compressed into pockets that decayed into crude oil, a catastrophic event that shaped this world.
to be fair this article does later try to debunk the flash frozen theory because WE CANT LET PEOPLE THINK GOD CREATED EVERYTHING.


That's the silliest idea I've ever read. You need evidence for THAT, not for wooly mammoths getting frozen. We known that happened, but it did not happen to the dinosaurs. If not we would have found them preserved in a similar manner and dated to the same time period and gotten more genetic information from them. This is not the case. We don't have dinosaurs that were instantly frozen and preserved. We don't have dinosaurs and mammoth fossils that date to the same time period. Plus, how do you explain humans surviving a global temperature shift to -150? I don't mind people believing god created everything, but promoting lies and half truths isn't the way to do it. The mammoth extinction could have been the result of a sudden glacial shift. There were plenty of these along with isolated flooding when the last glacial period ended around 10-12 thousand years ago. An impact event could also produce similar extinctions.


You think I dont know anything about science,....By 10 I had built my own chemistry set and electrolysis system
by 11 I made a digital lock for my room door
by 12 I was generating hydrogen by scraping zinc off of our trash can and putting it in acid
by13 I had my whole house bugged
built my own jam box
By 19 had degree in electronic engineering and built a magnetic levitator and 100s of other inventions and experiments.


What were you doing at 10 years old?????

Be careful what words you use , you never know what ones you will have to EAT.


Being condescending, does not win arguments. Not only do I not believe that for a second, but electric engineering has absolutely nothing to do with biology, chemistry or physics.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Why do you post the exact same thing over and over, I presented my evidence and opinions ,so the readers can decide. But I will not get into he said she said repetitious posts.

I keep posting the same thing over and over precisely because you have presented zero evidence for your claims. Rather, you have chosen to present baseless speculation and more claims when asked for evidence. Maybe you need a refresher on the difference between making a claim and providing evidence for that claim.

But back to the list of questions that you still have yet to answer...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 



More proof of the canopy is the FLASH FROZEN mastodons found close to Norway, they had fresh flowers in there stomachs and were frozen in place when the canopy collapsed.


Wait what? Are you saying there was a giant canopy of ice, and it suddenly fell from above and it flash froze everything on Earth? What about gravity and massive amounts of ice dropping to the ground? That didn't kill anything it just froze it?




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 


It seems my memory AND my opinons are right on, read and weep.

Just cause you dont like the truth dont mean you can change the FACTS.


It is proper form when posting your "evidence" that you link sources and you source all materials giving people the option of going back to come to the same conclusion you did.

This is very similar to the scientific method. Although it is of course not the same as the scientific method (not nearly as thorough, but it is an absolute must if you want anyone to take you seriously at all.

You posted a screenshot of what appears to be a page in vortexmaps.com


Based on Richard Dannelley's book, Sedona: Beyond the Vortex and Bruce Rawles


and right away I see a major red flag:


19.5 degrees is the angle that's been found by researchers (Richard C. Hoagland, Stanley McDaniel, Erol Torun, Horace W. Crater, etc.) to be repeatedly encoded in the structures of Cydonia.


Hoagland, also known as Hoaxland... is one of the most active Hoaxers on and offline. The last big thing he had going was comet Elenin being a spaceship which mysteriously vanish, using its Romulan cloaking devices evaporating when it got too close to the sun from solar wind.

From the same author and same website we find that the person you are going to to justify your incoherent ramblings is the same who says:


In support of the idea that some grotesque aliens may not be aligned with the fallen
hierarchy, we may take into account the fact that Sharon Davis, one of Sedona’s most
gifted, and psychic, spiritual healers has been assisted in her work on several occasions
by entities that resembled Zeta Reticulans, yet had strong, love-filled auras. In light of
this, we must remember that Love is not compatible with entities who have a negative
agenda. It is inconceivable that these entities could radiate Love and not be in harmony
with the Infinite Mind, isn’t it?

Sharon’s experience with these odd-looking humanoids seems to indicate that not all
“grotesque aliens” are at odds with Humanity. It also seems to indicate that not all
“grays” are as emotionless as some may claim. Beyond these observations, we also find
that these experiences help illustrate the illusive and contradictory nature of
extraterrestrial contact.


www.vortexmaps.com...

So the Zeta-Reticulans are helping these "researchers" with their "love-filled auras" and gee willikers... don't we and the other skeptical fellows in this thread look the fool now!


For the rest of us, instead of blindly believing anyone who offers up a number of books for $19.95 and promises to unlocking the secrets of the universe. It doesn't take us long to find a skeptical look at the information you're providing (because it sure as hell isn't scientific)


There's 541.5 more pages of that in this book. It should also be noted that any time anything is positioned even close to 19.5° from anything else, Hoagland harps on it as if it's the greatest thing since toast. This is because 19.5° is one of the special numbers he gleaned from decoding the "hyperdimensional tetrahedral physics" of one of the cities on Mars that no one else can see. The city is located near the site called Cydonia, and according to Hoagland it contains such features as pyramids and vast temple complexes. I'm not seeing it myself, despite Hoagland's numerous blow-ups of various sites adorned with notes pointing out "girders", "leaning buildings" and "collapsed structures." He has helpfully coupled these pictures with photographs of earthly building rubble for comparison. He also includes a picture overlayed with with the "geometric message" of the city, which resembles nothing so much as a jumble of lines connecting random features of the landscape.

This "city" is not coincidentally located near the infamous face on Mars, which gets the blame for catching Hoagland's attention in the first place and starting this whole mess. It's the "Martian artifact" he constantly goes back to when all else fails. The thing is, we have better pictures of the "face" than we did back when Viking 1 took the now-infamous image that Hoagland is so in love with. With modern equipment, the "face" looks like this.


So.. Since we aren't using science, (you)... we don't really need it to be dismissive either.

A skeptical look at 19.5 nonsense.

By the way, you have continued to provide absolutely NO EVIDENCE in the least.
edit on 10-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by flyingfish
 


You think I dont know anything about science,....By 10 I had built my own chemistry set and electrolysis system
by 11 I made a digital lock for my room door
by 12 I was generating hydrogen by scraping zinc off of our trash can and putting it in acid
by13 I had my whole house bugged
built my own jam box
By 19 had degree in electronic engineering and built a magnetic levitator and 100s of other inventions and experiments.


What were you doing at 10 years old?????

Be careful what words you use , you never know what ones you will have to EAT.


Nothing you claim here is any indication that you are familiar with the Scientific Method or that you were a student of science. Here, you are claiming some engineering feats which if true, are mildly impressive and anyone that age doing those things should be encouraged and directed properly so their talent does not go to waste.

Unless 19 was a year ago and you are 20, your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science means you were either totally overlooked in school, entirely ignorant to any study you were involved in, or you are perhaps suffering from learning disabilities or you have problems in comprehension.

I applaud you if you did indeed receive a electronic engineering degree at 19.

I am a little confused as to why you have so many comprehension issues.

Also, I think you need to take a program in some scientific field so you can maybe get a better understanding of how and why we make conclusions, or form opinions. Some of us are partially subjective sometimes, but for the most part, we aim to be as objective as possible.

Engineering is not science.

The above article, is a little subjective itself. Wasn't really my intent, I was just pointing that out. As your resume you're bragging about, does not really mean anything you've posted so far has any more weight than it did previously.

So far in this thread, you have made wild assertions and accusations, you've made many fantastical claims about history and the universe, and you have entirely failed to back any of this up with and sources or valid research.

So far the best evidence you have posted for all your ramblings, was a screenshot of some work, which is sold for profit, by people who claim aliens are running around dressed as humans, visiting the Earth constantly, and there's moon and mars alien bases who NASA et al is covering up while space ships fly in and out or around the solar system completely hidden to the amateur astronomy crowd.

You're argument keeps getting weaker and weaker to be honest.

-

Also, I should note, any child with wits, interest in tinkering, a little freedom and access to basic tools can do the things you mentioned. Many kids are busy with extracurricular activities, chasing girls (I think that's when I started...) and/or a bunch of other things that does not necessarily make them stupid, but interested in other stuff. It also does not mean they grow up to be dunces. In fact, sometimes a balanced childhood is all you need to be great in any selected field.

In any case, you could have built a nuclear reactor when you were 8, but unless you learned the difference between objectivity and subjectivity you are going to have a lot of problems later in life. And you're not going to win any arguments when it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

We don't need this information for the discussion at hand.

You can post source material, scientific evidence for your conclusions, or you can continue to dance around the subject and refuse to have a rational discussion. The latter just outs you for what you are however. Either someone posting with inherent ignorance seeping out of their talking points, or you're having fun looking for reactions from a ridiculous argument.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 
[


I think you guys should go regroup and come back and try again without making things up.


It's ironic that you are saying these words while posting "hyper dimensional physics" from Richard Hoaxland Hoagland.


Hoagland has proposed a form of physics he calls "hyperdimensional physics"[22][23] which, supported by the work of pseudoscientific overunity claimant Thomas E. Bearden,[24] he claims to represent the full implementation of James Clerk Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations,[25] instead of the reduced Maxwell's equations as amended by Oliver Heaviside commonly taught today. These ideas are rejected by the mainstream physics community as unfounded.[26]

A tenet of these views holds that vast amounts of energy originating from dimensions we cannot perceive are available at latitudes 19.5° both south and north on the Sun and every planet in the Solar System. Hoagland points to the colossal volcano, Olympus Mons, on Mars, as the supreme example, in addition to Earth's biggest volcano, Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaiʻi, and the anticyclonic storm on Jupiter. Olympus Mons is centered at approximately 18.65°N 226.2°E, and the massive shield spans from 13.48°N to 23.68°N and from 220.76°E to 232.2°E.[27] Jupiter's Great Red Spot is centered at 22.0°S.[28] According to Hoagland, an essential prediction of his theory is that a massive planet is yet to be discovered in the Solar System.[29] To date, no research conducted in mainstream astronomy would appear to substantiate these theories. Data analyzed from the WISE all-sky infrared survey, fully released in March 2012, has yet to reveal a Jupiter-size planet within the Oort cloud.[30] The survey should be able to reveal such an object.[31]


It must be the moon people and the Zeta Reticulans who are covering up and interfering with the entire framework of modern science and peer review!


The Moon[edit]
Hoagland rejects the entire body of knowledge represented by professional selenology and asserts that there are large semitransparent structures constructed of glass on the lunar surface, visible in some Apollo photography when the images are digitally manipulated,[56] and even more so when old photoprints are re-scanned on amateur equipment in non-clean conditions.[57]

He goes on to say that NASA is suppressing knowledge of an ancient civilization on the Moon, and that the advanced technology of this civilization is lying around on the Moon's surface.[58][59]

He alleged in Dark Mission that the twelve Apollo moonwalkers, who would be well qualified to confirm the existence of lunar artifacts and glass structures, have had their memories selectively edited with hypnosis so that they no longer remember seeing evidence of a lunar civilization.[60]

He has stated that a feature in an image of the lunar surface, believed by professional planetary scientists to be a rock, is actually the severed head of a robot,[59] and that "someone with an obvious 'in'" to JPL was the true originator of the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory in July 1969.[61]


en.wikipedia.org...


You're posting fabricated pseudoscience... and you're not even posting it properly. You fail to grasp the concept of sourcing you information.

In any case. You have not posted any scientific work at all, and nothing which has gone under the rigours of peer review.

Heck, you haven't even posted anything that at least is mildly corroborated by someone who isn't batSNIP nuts. Cookoo for cocoa puffs crazy.

Try again.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

There are some examples of small local evolution but people don't turn into fish and there is no evidence we once had wings.


Well... Actually there is a lot more than "some examples of small local evolution" but where did anyone in this thread or anywhere for that matter claim that the homo genus had wings or that we are turning into mermaids.

I find that proponents of creationism tend to always try and turn the argument for evolution into something absurd simply because they don't have a bipedal leg to stand on.

ie.

An argument for creationism:

"Evolutionists claim that monkeys were swinging from branches one day, but then suddenly us, humans, appeared from the monkey. But they never explain how monkeys are still here today. Obviously you can't have both! And... Evolutionists think that bacteria wanted to have sex so that's why we have sex today..."

I mean...The arguments get extremely idiotic. And I am paraphrasing a lot of these. I don't need to go all ad absurdum like the other side of the argument would have...


Evolutionary theory, along with its bed-partner secular humanism, is really a religion, so it is not appropriate to teach it in public schools.
*

No it's not a religion.


Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.
*

Yes, cause no crimes have been committed in the name of god.



However, when looking at other animals, the ridiculousness is amusing. For instance, how could a bird possible evolve a wing from the idea of natural selection? Why this would occur is purposelessly not adressed by evolutionists.


See: The flying squirrel.


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is NO scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The evolutionists would have found the evidence if they could.
*

This is factually wrong. A completely erroneous statement. In fact they found chromosome fusion:

www.youtube.com...


All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[4][5]


en.wikipedia.org...(human)

You will notice in study of evolution it is quite fluid and has great continuity since all the study is peer reviewed and falsifiable. Which also lends to the fact it's collaborative. Which means, since the very first idea of it, and study, it's been added to and advanced or improved over the years.

On the other hand, you have creationism which is simply made up or edited to the given preacher's will. Some creationists are entirely literal and claim the Earth is 6000 years old. While others are more progressive and say that the age of the Earth is the same as what the scientific body pegs it at, but science got everything else wrong. Or some things wrong and some things (that fit into their ideas) right.

It's all very mind boggling.

Why is there no uniform version of creationism? Because it's mumbo jumbo, gobbledygook... a sheister's diatribe.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by supergravity


It seems my memory AND my opinons are right on, read and weep.
Just cause you dont like the truth dont mean you can change the FACTS.

 


Who says things like "read and weep" ??? If you are in grade school than I apologize for being so tough on you, but c'mon now... seriously!

The "facts" are that you've been quoting pseudo-astronomy and pseudoscience.

Exposing PseudoAstronomy



Source 1 the 19.5 degrees. Secret geometry of the universe, or the future name of a boyband when Nick Lachey has a son?
Source 2 - So called tetrahedral physics

So Hoagland seems to be the creator of the hole whole 19.5 superisms and tetrahedral physics, as well as a host of other grand wisdom(y) theories and concepts. (I have trouble typing with a straight face).

*Of course, none of this nonsense is actually a theory. At best it's a drunken or idiotic hypothesis based of absurdity. Theories (in science) require a ton of data with empirical evidence to support their hypotheses, which can be replicated by anyone should they choose to do similar experiments under the parameters which led them to their conclusions.

In other words, a theory would stand up to peer review, because of reproducibility. Hoaxland Hoagland, simply makes stuff up to sell books and garner YouTube audiences. His works are never able to be reproduced or stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

19.5



So 19.5° is supposed to be some crazy revelation... as in, magnificent things happen at 19.5°.


On Earth, Mauna Loa, Hawai’i, with a summit at 19.48° is a correct claim of the largest shield volcano presently on the planet. However, it’s really not that spectacular a volcano in terms of energetic potential. The Yellowstone caldera is about 34×45 miles (55×72 km) across. That’s just the caldera. It is at a latitude 44.4° N. The most recent known supervolcano eruption on Earth was in Lake Taupo, about 26,500 years ago, and its latitude is 38.82° S.


Considering there are a number of super-volcanoes in the world, I fail to see the significance of 19.5°. Caldera at 44.4° is interesting however. 4 being the same word for death in Chinese...



So we should revel in the mysterious meaning of 19.5° though right? Since the wise ancients of yesteryear with some secret knowledge built massive structures in that location?


As for structures on the Earth to harness this energy, one might consider the Pyramid of the Sun and say, “wow, that’s pretty neat that it’s at 19.5°.” But what about Egypt’s pyramids? Or South America’s? What about other architecture, say, Stonehenge? None of these are near 19.5°. This is what we call “cherry picking” to an extreme.


Ah yes... Good ol cherry picking. A prerequisite to pseudo science!


If we want to expand the notion of cherry picking, let’s go to the moon. Hoagland has found some random feature at 19.5° … err, 19.6° … latitude on the far side that has something to do with a volcanic feature. Except that the moon is covered in volcanic features. When you look at the moon, all those dark splotches on the near side are vast volcanic areas where ancient impacts allowed magma from deep below the crust to breach the surface and fill them. And these seas of volcanic material — maria (plural) are not in any way centered around 19.5°. Nor are the smaller volcanic features that we observe today still strewn throughout them.


To continue the cherry picking and misinformation theme lets go to mars:


Or there’s Mars. Hoagland and his ilk claim that the vast Olympus Mons volcano – the tallest volcano in the solar system – is centered at 19.3° on Mars and is perfect evidence for this hyperbolic geometry. Except that it’s not. The caldera complex of Olympus Mons (there are at least 6 distinct calderas at the summit) range between latitudes 17.8° and 18.8° North. In addition to that, Olympus Mons is so vast with a diameter of around 650 km that the northern scarps start at around 23.5° N while the southern margin is around 13.5° N latitude. So with it spanning over 10°, it’s not that hard to hit it. Besides, Mars has 23 other major volcanoes, and Alba Patera, which is actually the most voluminous volcano in the solar system (as Mauna Loa is the most voluminous volcano on Earth), has a caldera centered at 40.3° N.



The claim of the sun having sunspots centered at 19.5° is also wrong, as can be seen on any given day.


Link to sunspots from NASA.

You will notice they are not limited to only 19.5°.

So what was that you were saying about eating words again? Cant change the FACTS and read and weep and all that right!
edit on 10-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
If could bud in


Science can not know for sure what took Place before 10-44 Seconds (Planck Time) after the "first cause" Big Bang.

Even the events leading up to the 10-44 after the Big Bang is part of a prosess that will lead to formation of galaxies, planets, stars and the life we have today 13.7 billions years later.

The prosess can be studied by science, but science will never know if the prosess of; first cause was created.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Wow I sure have pissed a few descendants of monkeys off on this thread lol


Some of what you are saying is true, I am not perfect and I did present some sloppy posts in a hurry, I will try to take more time and be more careful,so lets start over

In my 'OPINON' there could not have been a big bang because of the inverse square law ,explosions dont speed up in space time they slow as time goes by.here is 'some' data that confirms this.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I know that many attempts have been made to force feed us FAKES and here is evidence of that.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I know that many attempts have been made to force feed us FAKES and here is evidence of that.


Whereas creationists are always honest and up front about their intentions and would NEVER lie about science to promote their agenda or flat out make stuff up like ice canopies.
Piltdown man just shows a human being greedy. Gee, who woulda thunk? It doesn't negate the 12+ REAL species of hominid that have been found or the thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils. That's what you call a red herring. Please stop posting pictures of websites. Just type the web address and quote the relevant text. It's much easier and the only possible way to prove your point.
edit on 10-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


I know that many attempts have been made to force feed us FAKES and here is evidence of that.

What does this have to do with you being so far unable to present any evidence to support your claims?

Is Piltdown man the best you can do? Really? It was met with skepticism immediately upon being revealed. Less than a year after it was officially presented, and keep in mind this was before the information age, David Waterston concluded that it was a human skull and an ape jawbone. More scientists over the years, like Boule and Weidenreich, concluded the same. An analytical test that could verify whether or not the skull was relatively recent was finally developed in the early 1940's, but then that pesky World War II broke out and it couldn't actually be performed until the late 40's. It was a fraud perpetrated by a non-scientist and exposed by scientists.

Try again...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   


Wow I sure have pissed a few descendants of monkeys off on this thread lol





Don't ever accuse an advanced ape of being a monkey!!!

edit on 10-6-2013 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


Wow I sure have pissed a few descendants of monkeys off on this thread lol


Some of what you are saying is true, I am not perfect and I did present some sloppy posts in a hurry, I will try to take more time and be more careful,so lets start over

In my 'OPINON' there could not have been a big bang because of the inverse square law ,explosions dont speed up in space time they slow as time goes by.here is 'some' data that confirms this.


What does this have to do with evolution. Did you forget the topic of the thread?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


Wow I sure have pissed a few descendants of monkeys off on this thread lol


Some of what you are saying is true, I am not perfect and I did present some sloppy posts in a hurry, I will try to take more time and be more careful,so lets start over

In my 'OPINON' there could not have been a big bang because of the inverse square law ,explosions dont speed up in space time they slow as time goes by.here is 'some' data that confirms this.


What does this have to do with evolution. Did you forget the topic of the thread?


Well the Big Bang "first cause" theory is a large bit of evolution. The evolution prosess wouldnt be much without it.

What this person is saying is that the Big Bang wasnt a explosion. That is fair enough. What happened 10-44 Seconds after "first cause" Planck Time is byond Our Reach at the moment.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Every one on this thread knows It is close to impossible to prove a piece of ice existed thousands of years ago.
But every action has multiple secondary reactions that could be used to reconstruct the past.
Specifically the mastodons died WITH FRESH FLOWERS in the stomach, they did not have time to digest indicating a very fast event.lets reverse engineer how this happened.

A mammoth was walking in a snowstorm eating lilies and died from eating to much. I hope none of you think that is remotely possible.
It is obvious to me that the animal was walking in a mild climate that promoted vegetation and a sudden and profound temp change occurred that went though the whole animal within minutes.
I dont even think a polar shift could do this that quickly.
Can any of you explain how this happened?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


What does the big bang have to do with evolution? wow , that is one of the main evolutionary talking points.
Why cant you debate that if you have such a solid understanding of evolution?

The reason the universe's expansion is INCREASING is because there was not one big release of energy,in fact since it is speeding up it is logical to say more energy is added every day to accomplish the acceleration.
Where does that energy come from and in what form?
I think it is definitive that the big bang did not happen like the science books teach us.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join