Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

page: 22
28
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   

GargIndia

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

begoodbees
the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs


The evidence presented by creationists is always crap evidence - misinterpreted, misunderstood, overhyped and often outright hoaxed. I have seen this again and again, without variation.



Is an 'experience' an evidence? Yogis have seen the process of creation and destruction of universe in trance state (a state when soul can travel beyond body).

The theory of evolution had its time and place. It held good until science was developing.

Now microbiology is quite advanced, and all available evidence point to fallibility of theory of evolution.

If "theory of evolution" fails in experiments obviously does not prove "theory of creation". But it at least proves that we humans have gaps in our understanding of powers present in nature.



Where are you getting the "Now microbiology is quite advanced, and all available evidence point to fallibility of theory of evolution" statement from?
I'd suggest you "do your research" as quite the opposite is true. What we know and understand about microbiology only strengthens the theory of evolution.

It seems like your just stating non-facts here in the hope no-one checks them out.

We certainly do have gaps in our knowledge but to try to fill them with falsehoods is morally wrong.




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This is second place I see this Theory of Evolution 'proven' wrong, but this time as well without any supportive material.

Wonder if this was just another 'out of body' experience.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

GargIndia

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

begoodbees
the evolutionists ignore all evidence that contradicts their beliefs


The evidence presented by creationists is always crap evidence - misinterpreted, misunderstood, overhyped and often outright hoaxed. I have seen this again and again, without variation.



Is an 'experience' an evidence? Yogis have seen the process of creation and destruction of universe in trance state (a state when soul can travel beyond body).

The theory of evolution had its time and place. It held good until science was developing.

Now microbiology is quite advanced, and all available evidence point to fallibility of theory of evolution.

If "theory of evolution" fails in experiments obviously does not prove "theory of creation". But it at least proves that we humans have gaps in our understanding of powers present in nature.



Care to cite any sources for that? Or are we just playing the makeup whatever "facts" you can to support your position game?

Here's a pdf from a university that disagrees with you:
Genetic Evidence for Evolution

Now what seems more credible, an institution for higher learning or a random guy on the internet?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Assuming a big bang type of event occurred, what makes you think there was any time before this? It is generally thought to mark the beginning of time and space.


There was time before the Big Bang. It is just that, that time was a absolute constant. That is the same thing as if there were no time at all.
Because there were no changes until the forming of the Singularity as far as we know.

The expansion of the singularity at its creation and at present time can only happen because of presure differentials.

The Space within Our universe is very Close to a absolute vacuum at present time. That is hardly any presure at all, it is alomst a absolute constant. But it is still expanding. And that should tell you something about the Space surrounding the expanding singularity.



It also attributes this to an "idiot sky fairy" who is entirely imaginary, instead of our understanding the forces of nature, which are real.


Of cource it is. When you put it the way you do. But if you really do understand the forces of nature, which we hopfully will figure out. I bet Your flute will have a different tune.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

GargIndia
The 'space' may expand or contract, but time does not get affected by that at all.


Really? And what of the time-dilation experiments that prove a clock in high-earth orbit records different time then one on the surface?



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


When you do an experiment, you must always first question your method.

You just told me that a clock in high earth orbit records time different from a clock on earth.

Now this clock in orbit is not in relative motion wrt earth. The clock in orbit is moving but is at a fixed distance from earth. So why should time be different?

The question is "Are we sure our atomic clock are as precise as we think, or they get affected by some factors which we do not properly understand".

What if atomic clock itself is at fault. I told you about vibrations of atoms affected by energy state. The clock is based on measuring vibrations.

I can give you experiments which can show on earth's surface itself that atomic clocks are not as precise as made out to be.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


This theory is a highly political subject. There is a very simple reason as current power structures are based on a scientific/religious cult that favors this theory.

You questioning my credentials is a very natural reaction which is seen all over US scientific establishment.

I shall study your PDF and come with replies.

I get a "document not found" when I click on your link.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


When you do an experiment, you must always first question your method.

You just told me that a clock in high earth orbit records time different from a clock on earth.

Now this clock in orbit is not in relative motion wrt earth. The clock in orbit is moving but is at a fixed distance from earth. So why should time be different?

The question is "Are we sure our atomic clock are as precise as we think, or they get affected by some factors which we do not properly understand".

What if atomic clock itself is at fault. I told you about vibrations of atoms affected by energy state. The clock is based on measuring vibrations.

I can give you experiments which can show on earth's surface itself that atomic clocks are not as precise as made out to be.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


Yes is the answer to that one.
They were referenced against each other using like for like if you will.
The phenomenon is called time dilation which is the effect on time by either velocity or gravity.
The further you move from a gravitational object, the more time will differ than if you were on that object.

If the phenomenon was just down to using clocks then I'm sure you could question it's validity.
It's not though, there are several other ways of proving the dilation of time, not all of them using clocks and very few of them actually having to leave Earth.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


This theory is a highly political subject. There is a very simple reason as current power structures are based on a scientific/religious cult that favors this theory.

You questioning my credentials is a very natural reaction which is seen all over US scientific establishment.

I shall study your PDF and come with replies.

I get a "document not found" when I click on your link.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


No the theory is not a highly political subject. Creationists like to pretend it is, but in fact it is accepted throughout academia as pretty much true (hence the reason it is called a theory and not a hypothesis). In fact, pretty much every scientist in the world would have to be on some GIANT global conspiracy for what you said to be true, and frankly that is impossible. There is no way that every scientist in the world is on the take in regards to evolution. It is just highly illogical.

There is no religious cult to make sure evolution is true either. It just happens to have the evidence to support it. Creationists like to view the world through belief structures (probably because in order to believe the lunacy that is Creationism requires a HUGE suspension of disbelief), so when they see something contradict what they believe, they automatically assume it is also a belief structure. Well son, you and the other Creationists are wrong. Science is built up through the scientific method and peer review. It has nothing to do with what you believe or feel is right. It has everything to do with looking at evidence and coming to conclusions based on that evidence, then looking at more evidence and seeing if your prior conclusions hold up, if not then you revise them or change them completely. This process continues forever. Confusing science with religion or calling it a religious belief system is a HUGE insult to science since it is nothing like religion.

I questioned your credentials because as a random forum poster, you have none; just like me. So we supplant this lack of credibility with evidence. There is tons of evidence to support evolutionary theory. Likewise, there is practically NO evidence to support Creationism.

I'm not sure why the link copied wrong and it is too late to edit my post, let's try again:

www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf
edit on 17-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

GargIndia
The 'space' may expand or contract, but time does not get affected by that at all.


Really? And what of the time-dilation experiments that prove a clock in high-earth orbit records different time then one on the surface?


There is also a big difference in compression time and expansion time . They are not even compatible because you wouldnt recognize a expansion time where there is contraction. Which would imply in he's case.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

GargIndia
When you do an experiment, you must always first question your method.

...


I can give you experiments which can show on earth's surface itself that atomic clocks are not as precise as made out to be.


Whether or not you think atomic clocks are inaccurate is irrelevant as this fact is proven out every time you utilize a GPS. If the satellites were not recalibrated on a regular basis due to time dilation it would eventually render the devices useless as they would not be able to determine where you are based on faulty data supplied by out of sync satellites.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

spy66
There is also a big difference in compression time and expansion time . They are not even compatible because you wouldnt recognize a expansion time where there is contraction. Which would imply in he's case.


Read his posts, he does not under stand time period.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
There is also a big difference in compression time and expansion time . They are not even compatible because you wouldnt recognize a expansion time where there is contraction. Which would imply in he's case.


Read his posts, he does not under stand time period.


I have to agree to that, because in some posts he is doing quite okay, but then he mess Things up With a contrediction in a different post.
With a bit of help he will understand what time is.

Time is a big topic that covsers a lot of different aspects of how we observe reality around us. Time have to be narrowed Down to aply just chages in physical matter and particles. If not we will just mess Things up.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

spy66

There was time before the Big Bang. It is just that, that time was a absolute constant. That is the same thing as if there were no time at all.


That answers that.



The expansion of the singularity at its creation and at present time can only happen because of presure differentials.


Says you.


The Space within Our universe is very Close to a absolute vacuum at present time.


As far as physical matter goes, stuff made of atoms, within the observable universe, yes. It is far better than any vacuum that can be created in a laboratory. Yet there is a lot more to "empty space" than that.

It is unlikely there is such a thing as genuinely "empty space" and a perfect vacuum (space absent of all matter) is unlikely to be a vacuum in the "absolute" sense. It contains something, by virtue of occupying volume. Is space "something"? According to certain quantum physicists "empty space" has weight (and therefore mass). I get the feeling that you refer to a "philosophical" vacuum which seems another word for "absolutely nothing", something that doesn't and cannot exist and then give it whatever properties you like (though I could be wrong). This is different to the "nothing" from which some physicists say our universe appeared.

A bit loathe to ask, but it might be worth defining the properties of your claimed vacuum that supposedly exists outside of our universe. If we exist within it, is it still a vacuum? Can you tell us in simple parlance what it is?



That is hardly any presure at all, it is alomst a absolute constant. But it is still expanding. And that should tell you something about the Space surrounding the expanding singularity.


It isn't really our entire universe that is expanding (ie. are you expanding, is the distance to the sun increasing?), it is space (between galaxies etc) that is expanding. Dark energy might also account for this (and satisfy the "pressure" requirements). As of yet, no one really knows.


it is still expanding. And that should tell you something about the Space surrounding the expanding singularity.


It tells me very little, not necessarily what you claim it should. It raises plenty of questions though.


Of cource it is. When you put it the way you do. But if you really do understand the forces of nature, which we hopfully will figure out. I bet Your flute will have a different tune.


A somewhat silly taunt.

If you are willing to believe a primitive source claiming (amongst many other ridiculous claims) that at one time our planet was the (first and) only heavenly object in the entire universe......and during this time was also was subject to "nightime and daytime"......that grasses, herbs and fruit trees flourished before the sun existed etc......go for it.


spy66
I agree. In Genesis Chapter 1. It is clearly stated that Earth and the sea brought forth all life.


No it doesn't. That is only your interpretation.

It claims that a magical being created the creatures of the sea (and air) and then those on the land, separately, independently of each other and at different times. Nowhere does it claim all life came from the sea and the sea didn't bring forth any living things at all, according to your scientific (lol) literature, the magic man made the lot of it.


edit on 18-1-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


This theory is a highly political subject. There is a very simple reason as current power structures are based on a scientific/religious cult that favors this theory.

You questioning my credentials is a very natural reaction which is seen all over US scientific establishment.

I shall study your PDF and come with replies.

I get a "document not found" when I click on your link.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


Round objects. Any British politician who questions evolution will get laughed at. A lot.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
Round objects. Any British politician who questions evolution will get laughed at. A lot.


And here in states we almost got Mormon president.




posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
 


What do you believe in? Forget the politicians.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


When you do an experiment, you must always first question your method.

You just told me that a clock in high earth orbit records time different from a clock on earth.

Now this clock in orbit is not in relative motion wrt earth. The clock in orbit is moving but is at a fixed distance from earth. So why should time be different?

The question is "Are we sure our atomic clock are as precise as we think, or they get affected by some factors which we do not properly understand".

What if atomic clock itself is at fault. I told you about vibrations of atoms affected by energy state. The clock is based on measuring vibrations.

I can give you experiments which can show on earth's surface itself that atomic clocks are not as precise as made out to be.
edit on 17-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)


Which experiments?

How would you (alternately) explain those like the one below? There have been plenty of these experiments since the original ones in the 1930's (IIRC). They all not only support/are explained by time dilation, but show that time dilation also affects radioactive decay rates.

web.mit.edu...

edit on 20-1-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


It is very easy to draw wrong conclusions by assuming 'time' to be a variable commodity.

The experiment that you just quoted is a glowing example of that.

You are looking at muons from a point of reference of a place on earth. These muons have originated at different places and travelled different distances to earth. The energy state of each muon is different from others. What you are measuring is that fact. A particle in motion is affected by conditions on the road - like electro-magnetism that exists throughout galaxy and affects every travelling particle.

You are not measuring time-dilation on muon as you have no way of measuring that from point of reference of a single point on earth.

The radiation is an atomic phenomenon. It is very logical that natural radio-activity will be affected by energy state of atom. Again this is not an example of time-dilation.

You are missing a very important point - when you run an experiment, your inputs and outputs must be controlled and well defined. Show me those experiments.



posted on Jan, 21 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

GargIndia
It is very easy to draw wrong conclusions by assuming 'time' to be a variable commodity.

The experiment that you just quoted is a glowing example of that.


There are no great assumptions required here. There are also no experiments that falsify special relativity. I picked this type of experiment because it seems easier for dummies like myself to get the basic gist of.

All you are doing is making claims. Not that you shouldn't have an opinion, after all, who really knows? But it would generally be put in a way that could make it obvious this is simply your belief. It is a fascinating subject, and alternate ideas can be very interesting, less so when people start claiming all sorts of designers as "self evident" facts and scientific theories that disagree with them as false, just because.


You are looking at muons from a point of reference of a place on earth. These muons have originated at different places and travelled different distances to earth. The energy state of each muon is different from others. What you are measuring is that fact. A particle in motion is affected by conditions on the road - like electro-magnetism that exists throughout galaxy and affects every travelling particle.


Nonsense. It is known where and how these particles come about and it is explained in the experiment how this is taken into account. The original experiment goes into greater detail. These particle shouldn't reach earth but they do. Time dilation/ length contraction accounts for this quite accurately within the experimental parameters.

What is your alternate hypothesis and what do you have to support it? Do you think these particles travelling faster than scientist think? Do you disagree with decay times? Something else? Why?


You are not measuring time-dilation on muon as you have no way of measuring that from point of reference of a single point on earth.

Nonsense. That seems to be the point of the whole thing and precisely what they are doing.


The radiation is an atomic phenomenon. It is very logical that natural radio-activity will be affected by energy state of atom. Again this is not an example of time-dilation.

You seem to have left out the part that either backs up your assertion, or makes it obvious this is "in your personal opinion".


You are missing a very important point - when you run an experiment, your inputs and outputs must be controlled and well defined. Show me those experiments.


A source for original experiment showing time dilation is afaik by B.Rossi and D. Hall in 1941. These are reasonably well known experiments.

I would ask for your sources but am still waiting for the "simple" procedure that you claim debunks atomic clocks.

If you are going to claim the falsification of well supported scientific theories as a fact, it would be customary to back that up with something.

edit on 21-1-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join