Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
160 replies to this topic

#21 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:35 AM

Is that your 'observed evidence' that the 1st Law was/is violated? Yes/no.

Quote: "Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle" (Wikipedia)

You mean as in 'virtual reality'? (wink) To use as an example of your 'evidence' that scientists have measured a blip which seems to appear out of nowhere and just as quickly vanishes is supposed to answer to the fact that our physical world is visible, measureable, and testable at every moment of time? So where is the creation of matter out of nothing by natural processes? Your little 'blip' won't do it.

First you wanted an example of matter coming from nothing, then you switch to asking for a violation of the 1st law. These are two different requests because the uncertainty principle permits temporary increases in mass/energy.

Do you accept the vacuum as an example of nothing?
Do you accept that virtual particles have mass?
Do virtual particles come from the vacuum?
If you answer yes to these questions then you are acknowledging that mass has been observed to come from nothing. How long it lasts is a function of the amount of mass borrowed from nothing and governed by the Uncertainty principle. The more mass borrowed, the shorter the time of existence before it gets returned and vice versa. There's no overall violation of the 1st law because there's no net increase in mass/energy.

The universe, which the available evidence suggests has a total of zero mass/energy, would be an example of nothing coming from nothing. There's no net mass/energy to return to vacuum which means that the Uncertainty principle allows the universe to be permanent. There's no violation of the 1st law because there's no net increase in mass/energy.

http://en.wikipedia....energy_universe Overview
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063 Calculation showing exact zero from theory
http://www.curtismen...oEnergyCalc.htm Calculation showing zero within a margin of error from mass of observable universe

First point is a giant assumption since there is NO humanly possible way to verify that, (remember you need empirical evidence as verification)

What I'd like to know is that if the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, (entropy), then by what natural mechanism was order created?

Expansion of the universe is what permits the development of order. If you had some gas in a balloon, it would be at maximum entropy for that balloon configuration, no work would be possible for that gas inside that balloon. If you pop the balloon and release the gas into a room, there is suddenly a much higher limit of maximum entropy while the gas is temporarily at a lower state of entropy than the new maximum. Work is possible in this state. When the gas has expanded to fill the room it will once again be at maximum entropy. If the room is opened and the gas released into the whole building the maximum possible entropy has increased, and work is possible until the gas expands to fill the building.

The universe could start at a state of maximum entropy and by expanding, the maximum possible entropy would be able to increase faster than the actual entropy level.

Here's an example with some arbitrary numbers to help visualize the idea.
Start entropy: 1
Max entropy: 1

After expansion
Current entropy: 2
Max entropy: 3
Note that there would be no decrease in entropy so the 2nd law is not violated. As long as current entropy is not equal to max entropy, work and order is permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly...

#22 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:05 AM

We are not talking about 'potential energy' we are talking about actual, measurable, known and used energy that is expended visibly every single moment of every day.


Potential energy is exactly that kind of energy. When you pick up a stone, you can calculate exactly how much potential energy it has - i.e. you can predict how much kinetic energy it will have when dropped.

Potential energy is only 'zero' UNTIL it is used as work.


I didn't say it was zero. I said it was negative - i.e. its vector has an opposite direction to the kinetic enegy that will be released.

Your quote defines biogenesis as:

"the theory that living organisms can arise only from pre-existing living matter"


Note the word "theory". Theories are constantly being refined and updated. Not many biologists or chemists today would agree with that definition.

"Spontaneous generation is a dream" (Louis Pasteur)


Manned flight was once a dream. Today it's reality, even commonplace. Don't confuse something that hasn't happened yet with somehing that can not happen.

Sure, but what one cannot Google is any example of life that has generated from non-living matter...ever.


"Never" is the word that they used to scoff at the Wright brothers. You most certainly can Google the progress that is being made.

My aim wasn't to give you detailed answers. It was to point out that answers do exist and they can be found easily if you take the trouble to look. Seek and ye shall find.

#23 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:16 AM

What I'd like to know is that if the natural prerogative of the universe is to go from order to chaos, (entropy), then by what natural mechanism was order created?


Increasing order is a very common occurence among natural processes. Crystal formation is an obvious example. There are many examples of chemical reactions in which the products are more complex than the reagants. Spontaneity depends on a combination of entropy changes and enthalpy changes.

Even IF scientists manage to make life themselves ... then what does that prove?...It proves that intelligence was used to create life!!


Intelligence can only manipulate natural processes that already exist. A stone will roll downhill whether it was pushed by an intelligence or by an earthquake or by moving water, etc

Even if scientists found a way for life to self assemble from the ground up production, (the holy grail of nanotechnology), then that proves that intelligence was used to create self-assembly systems


All chemical reactions are self-assembly systems. Is intelligence necessary for hydrogen and oxygen to assemble into water?

#24 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:29 AM

Say in a closed room at 85 degrees, you mix one mole of sodium, with one mole of chlorine. You are going to get a very spontaneous exothermic reaction (heat releasing), and alot of sodium chloride (salt). The heat (energy) will release into the room and cause the room temp to increase--that is until the room releases it's energy (heat), until it is at equilibrium with the outside. But to say the process is zero energy is misleading and therefore irrelelavant to the creation of anything, let alone life!


We're talking about the total energy of the universe. I don't quite see how the open system in your example applies. Please elaborate.

#25 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:42 AM

miles; First you wanted an example of matter coming from nothing, then you switch to asking for a violation of the 1st law. These are two different requests because the uncertainty principle permits temporary increases in mass/energy.

Are you trying to rescue your skeptic buddies who are still picking up their teeth off the floor? You are the third one to lie to me in this matter. I didn't 'switch' anything. They provided no evidence and ayen admitted it. But if you wish to call the appearance of a quantum 'blip' that appears for less than a nanosecond and vanishes just as quickly the violation of the 1st law then demonstrate by observation that those 'blips' can become visible, measurable, testable matter that makes up our visible world. Other than that you better leave those blips in the realm of mystery like honest scientists do. But come on, say it: The uncertainty principle violates the 1st Law. Write it out in plain English.

Do you accept the vacuum as an example of nothing?

Quote: 'Vacuum is space that is empty of matter'. Wikipedia.

Do you accept that virtual particles have mass?

Quote: 'Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of *real particles.' (ibid) And, quote: "The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy"[citation needed]) because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range". (ibid) This puts things in terms that are almost impossible for the human mind to comprehend. These 'particles' are called 'virtual' for a reason. We don't know what they are. So don't base your opinion in this matter on something we don't yet fully grasp. The 1st law, however, we do fully grasp and that is why it is a LAW of science. You are appealing to an area of scientific inquiry that is not well understood yet. The quantum world is a world of chaos and confusion.

Do virtual particles come from the vacuum?

We don't even know for certain what they are yet so the question is a non-sequitur.

If you answer yes to these questions then you are acknowledging that mass has been observed to come from nothing.

Read my answers again and tell me that I acknowledged what you said. Your efforts here are futile and you are barking up the wrong tree.

How long it lasts is a function of the amount of mass borrowed from nothing and governed by the Uncertainty principle. The more mass borrowed, the shorter the time of existence before it gets returned and vice versa. There's no overall violation of the 1st law because there's no net increase in mass/energy.

'borrowed from nothing'? So nothing (defined as 'no thing') creates something. You skeptics throw this junk at us and then expect us to take you seriously. Look, IF 'something' appeared in the location of 'no thing' then it probably means we got a glimpse of the interaction between the spirit realm and the physical world. But until they figure this out then don't bring it up again because no one in the scientific world can cause 'no thing' to become 'something' and then make it visible on a permanent basis.

The universe, which the available evidence suggests has a total of zero mass/energy, would be an example of nothing coming from nothing. There's no net mass/energy to return to vacuum which means that the Uncertainty principle allows the universe to be permanent. There's no violation of the 1st law because there's no net increase in mass/energy. The theory is wrong. The 1st Law is correct. The theory is based on human opinions, which vary greatly from scientist to scientist. The Law is firmly established and you are pretending. But let me stress that unless those of your ilk can demonstrate that those 'blips' can remain and become a stone, or ice, or water, then you have no case.

http://en.wikipedia....energy_universe Overview http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063 Calculation showing exact zero from theory http://www.curtismen...oEnergyCalc.htm Calculation showing zero within a margin of error from mass of observable universe.

It works fine on paper. Now demonstate that you and/or your comrades can violate the 1st Law. if you can do that then we can just toss it out forever. Expansion of the universe is what permits the development of order. That is completely backwards thinking. Our universe is not developing(evolving) in order, it is degenerating. I have about 15 different examples of that fact in a 242 slide Power point presentation with documentation, almost all of which are verified by those of your persuasion. It isnt hard to do.

If you had some gas in a balloon, it would be at maximum entropy for that balloon configuration, no work would be possible for that gas inside that balloon. If you pop the balloon and release the gas into a room, there is suddenly a much higher limit of maximum entropy while the gas is temporarily at a lower state of entropy than the new maximum. Work is possible in this state. When the gas has expanded to fill the room it will once again be at maximum entropy. If the room is opened and the gas released into the whole building the maximum possible entropy has increased, and work is possible until the gas expands to fill the building.

\ You didn't state where the gas came from to begin with. But like every other skeptic you don't have a clue. You guess. Besides that, the gas does not evolve...it dissipates. Dissipation would not create the universe as it is now. The universe could start at a state of maximum entropy and by expanding, the maximum possible entropy would be able to increase faster than the actual entropy level. Here's an example with some arbitrary numbers to help visualize the idea. Start entropy: 1 Max entropy: 1 After expansion Current entropy: 2 Max entropy: 3 Note that there would be no decrease in entropy so the 2nd law is not violated. As long as current entropy is not equal to max entropy, work and order is permitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly...

Entropy being defined (in part) as 'the measure of the disorder of a system'. So how did this disorder create the universe? If you weren't so brainwashed with that nonsense then you would perhaps be able to grasp the titanic mistake you are making. The world/universe did NOT create itself and you and those like you are fools for believing such things. "The fool hath said in his heart there is no god'. Psalm 14:1

I apologize to the readers for how scrambled this post is. I tried to repair it but was frustrated in my attempt. Technical problems.

#26 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:45 AM

Potential energy is exactly that kind of energy. When you pick up a stone, you can calculate exactly how much potential energy it has - i.e. you can predict how much kinetic energy it will have when dropped. I didn't say it was zero. I said it was negative - i.e. its vector has an opposite direction to the kinetic enegy that will be released. Your quote defines biogenesis as: Note the word "theory". Theories are constantly being refined and updated. Not many biologists or chemists today would agree with that definition. Manned flight was once a dream. Today it's reality, even commonplace. Don't confuse something that hasn't happened yet with somehing that can not happen. "Never" is the word that they used to scoff at the Wright brothers. You most certainly can Google the progress that is being made. My aim wasn't to give you detailed answers. It was to point out that answers do exist and they can be found easily if you take the trouble to look. Seek and ye shall find.


I challenged you to provide evidence that nature has ever created matter (visible, measureable, testable) and that natural processes have ever been observed to bring for life from non-living matter. I did not ask you to wax eloquent with your personal opinions.

You said, "Don't confuse something that hasn't happened yet with somehing that can not happen."

O.k. fine. Now show us.

#27 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:01 AM

I challenged you to provide evidence that nature has ever created matter (visible, measureable, testable) and that natural processes have ever been observed to bring for life from non-living matter.


Your challenge is the equivalent of the schoolboy's, "I'm the king of the castle." It may be true in this little schoolyard but it ignores the real King in his real castle. If you're honesty seeking answers, they're out there. Your taunts here won't make them go away. If you want to discuss the answers given, I'm here.

#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:04 AM

Your challenge is the equivalent of the schoolboy's, "I'm the king of the castle." It may be true in this little schoolyard but it ignores the real King in his real castle. If you're honesty seeking answers, they're out there. Your taunts here won't make them go away. If you want to discuss the answers given, I'm here.


Stop playing mental games and give us proof that the 1st Law has been violated by natural process and that abiogenesis has in fact occurred ( or even that it CAN occur) in our world.

#29 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:25 AM

Stop playing mental games and give us proof that the 1st Law has been violated by natural process and that abiogenesis has in fact occurred ( or even that it CAN occur) in our world.


I'm saying that the 1st Law has not been violated. If you want to discuss why, I'll do my best.

I'm more comfortable with chemistry than physics, so I'll be glad to discuss how abigenesis can happen.

#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:29 AM

I'm saying that the 1st Law has not been violated. If you want to discuss why, I'll do my best.

I'm more comfortable with chemistry than physics, so I'll be glad to discuss how abigenesis can happen.


I don't want your 'discussion'. I want observed evidence!

#31 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:31 AM

To the other readers; The matter of 'virtual particles' has come up.

'Virtual' is defined as 'being in essence or in effect though not formally recognized or admitted.'

They don't know what they are dealing with and cannot pin it down in a completely definable manner yet they appeal to it to 'prove' their point. But what else are they going to do?

#32 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:35 AM

I don't want your 'discussion'.


Clearly. If you were honestly interested in answers to your questions, you'd look where the answers are.

I'm willing to help you find them. Or you can declare victory. Your choice.

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:01 PM

Clearly. If you were honestly interested in answers to your questions, you'd look where the answers are.

I'm willing to help you find them. Or you can declare victory. Your choice.


I've been looking for 45 yrs. I still haven't seen an evolutionary scientist that could demonstrate that nature can create or destroy matter. I still have not seen a Darwinian that could demonstrate that natural processes can develop life from non-living matter....Miller/Urey, Jack Shostack, Orgel, or Robinson notwithstanding.

Quote: " (Robinson 2005): “Give biologists a cell, and they’ll give you the world. But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?”

Indeed, it is one thing that we know all the chemical building materials of life, and that the functioning of life can be fully explained by their collaboration in an extremely complex system. Yet it is another thing entirely how, at the origin of life, they could have formed an initial organization by themselves step by step.' (talk/;origins.com)

In other words they admit they have not achieved the task...or else they wouldn't still be working on it. And you will be no more successful than they will because this is God's world and only He is the Creator of life. Nature can't do it. It can only reproduce what the Lord pre-programmed it to reproduce. You can disagree all you want but there is nothing you can do about it.

P.S. Why would you even suggest that I would 'declare victory'...that is, unless you see in this debate the utter failure of your side to produce what should be a simple thing to do: provide direct evidence that matter can be created by natural processes without the Creator God and that life has observably developed from non-living matter contrary to the law of Biogenesis?

#34 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

In other words they admit they have not achieved the task...or else they wouldn't still be working on it.


They're still working on it like the Wright brothers were still working on it in 1902. They see no reason to think the goal is unattainable.

You're claiming that it's impossible because it hasn't been done yet.

#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:41 PM

They're still working on it like the Wright brothers were still working on it in 1902. They see no reason to think the goal is unattainable.

You're claiming that it's impossible because it hasn't been done yet.


Are you kidding me? That's as high as you can go in your reasoning?

There was no law forbidding man's flight by artificial means. But there are laws against nature creating matter from nothing...and there is a law that keeps nature from developing life from non-living matter.

Hang it up, friend. Your beliefs are directly countrary to natural law...and still more than that to God's law. Those of your ilk can't even force nature to do what they want it to.

Don't reply unless you post direct evidence by You Tube or a link giving the evidence I asked for.

#36 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 25 June 2012 - 12:42 PM

(responses to a zero-energy universe)
The theory is wrong. The 1st Law is correct.
...
It works fine on paper. Now demonstate that you and/or your comrades can violate the 1st Law

You appear to be assuming that getting mass from nothing would violate the 1st law. It doesn't as long as there is a corresponding negative value to balance the created mass.
The 1st laws states that the total amount of energy/mass in a system is conserved. From a initial value of zero energy, there is no violation of the 1st law as long as the total energy remains zero. Both empirical measurements and theoretical models are consistent with the universe currently having zero total energy. That means that the formation of the universe from nothing would not be a violation of the 1st law. If you want to say this is wrong then please show where the calculations demonstrating zero total energy in the universe are incorrect. One way to do this would be by demonstrating that the universe is not flat.

#37 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

...and there is a law that keeps nature from developing life from non-living matter.


The Law of Biogenesis describes what has been observed up to now. It doesn't proscribe anything from happening in the future, just like the Law of Gravity in 1902 didn't prevent the development of aviation.

There is no known barrier preventing simple chemicals from spontaneously combining into more complex ones nor is there any known limit to the complexity that can be attained. If you claim it can't happen, the onus is on you to show that such a barrier exists just like the onus would be on you in 1902 to show that a barrier to human flight exists.

Don't reply unless you post direct evidence by You Tube or a link giving the evidence I asked for.


As I've been saying, if you're looking for evidence on YouTube, you're looking in the wrong place.

#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:11 PM

You appear to be assuming that getting mass from nothing would violate the 1st law. It doesn't as long as there is a corresponding negative value to balance the created mass.


Says who? Demonstrate it by observed example.

The 1st laws states that the total amount of energy/mass in a system is conserved. From a initial value of zero energy, there is no violation of the 1st law as long as the total energy remains zero. Both empirical measurements and theoretical models are consistent with the universe currently having zero total energy. That means that the formation of the universe from nothing would not be a violation of the 1st law. If you want to say this is wrong then please show where the calculations demonstrating zero total energy in the universe are incorrect. One way to do this would be by demonstrating that the universe is not flat.


Sure: the energy in your hands to type your post was potential energy. The moment you reached for your keyboard it became kinetic energy...and now it is at rest(conserved). The energy you used is now in disorder and cannot be used again. To perform more work you must draw once more from the source of energy in your body (the nutrients supplied by food). Magnify this to the total amount of energy in the universe. There is 'x' amount. With each passing moment there is less energy in our world/universe. That tells us that there was a time when all the energy that has ever been burned had an origin...of total availability. That time of 'total availability' was the beginning; the beginning of God's creation. Since it is all slowly burning off we know that it will have an ultimate 'heat death' and there will be no more heat nor molecular motion and the entire universe will come to a complete standstill and the temp will be 473 degrees below zero F. However, all that exists now will exist then because matter is never destroyed. It only becomes useless once it is burned by work.

Now, please create 'zero energy' and then make something physical out of it.

#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:12 PM

The Law of Biogenesis describes what has been observed up to now. It doesn't proscribe anything from happening in the future, just like the Law of Gravity in 1902 didn't prevent the development of aviation.

There is no known barrier preventing simple chemicals from spontaneously combining into more complex ones nor is there any known limit to the complexity that can be attained. If you claim it can't happen, the onus is on you to show that such a barrier exists just like the onus would be on you in 1902 to show that a barrier to human flight exists.

As I've been saying, if you're looking for evidence on YouTube, you're looking in the wrong place.


You need to quit. You have no case nor any example that you even COULD be correct.

#40 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:28 PM

You need to quit. You have no case nor any example that you even COULD be correct.


You haven't addressed the points I made. That's what I mean by declaring victory. Instead of looking honestly at what has been done, you demand to see evidence of what hasn't been done yet. That isn't the way a sincere quest for knowledge works.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users