Jump to content


Photo

200 Reasons Why I Rejected Evolution Theory


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#21 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2015 - 12:08 PM

This may take weeks, but here goes:

Indeed.  This has the potential to become one of the best all-time topics on the forum.

 

I intend to give brief answers because I cannot afford to spend all the time it takes to make long detailed posts.

Frankly, I tend to think brief answers are generally better than those that run a half-dozen or so screens.  That is why I sometimes take some of Indy's posts and break them down to 3 or 4 responses.



#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 12:09 PM



But ToE is a scientific theory that explains the unity and diversity of life. That's it. It makes a methodological naturalism assumption as does everything in science by default, but ontologically it makes no claims about materialism or the supernatural. The scope of ToE does not extend to abiogenesis or the creation of the universe, let alone the various astronomy and physics questions Calypsis posted. 

 

P.S. I haven't forgotten about our other discussion, these types of posts are just much easier and quicker to write. 

 

I don't like trying to communicate with you because you've destroyed your critical thinking skills about science by the acceptance  falsehoods. You just gave us one of them: "The scope of ToE does not extend to abiogenesis or the creation of the universe,"

 

What enormous lies you believe in. Like many of your comrades you treat the truth like its rubber and stretch things any way you think necessary to escape the reality of the Creator God and His written Word say about our world.

 

Would you please check out post #187 again and see why your notion is refuted by even those of your own persuasion.

 

Furthermore I have a list of many books authored by evolution scientists who reveal that evolution is indeed about the origins of life...

 

Origins6.pngOrigins3.pngOrigins2.pngOrigins7.pngOrigins4.png

 

Shall I post a dozen or more in addition to these? But maybe Scientific American and Neil de Grasse Tyson has no credibility with you. Maybe you know better about evolution theory than they do. Hmm?



#23 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2015 - 12:25 PM

2. Evolution cannot explain how nature somehow created matter directly contrary to the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Actually, the Law of Conservation of Mass relates to chemistry.  Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing with his equation E = mc2.  In nuclear physics, we can and have produced mass.  That's what we do in the creation of new elements with greater masses than Uranium.  Of course, it takes huge amounts of energy to do this.

 

BTW, don't we need to clarify what is meant by "evolution" in this context?  Certainly we aren't speaking of biological (ie: Darwinian) evolution as that particular branch of inquiry has nothing at all to do with most of your list.

 

 

3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of light.

 

But the Word of God tells us"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light" Genesis, 1:3

 

4. Evolution cannot explain the origin of heat.

 

5. Evolution cannot explain the origin of gravitational attraction nor why it exists to begin with.

Do I have to explain the origin of light, heat, or gravity to learn and understand how they work?

 

By way of analogy, saying "we don't understand the origin of life so evolution is false" is much like saying "we don't understand the origin of gravity, so gravity is false."



#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2015 - 12:30 PM

6. Cosmic evolutionists cannot explain the expansion of our universe. They claim that the so-called 'event horizon' is perhaps up to 20 billion light yrs distant from earth but they don't have a clue as to what our universe is expanding into. What is beyond that 'event horizon' is a total mystery to them. 

Do we need to know what the universe is expanding into in order to know that it is expanding?  If not, why is the question even relevant?

 

This one is like saying there is one of these "rubber ducky" races on a foggy day.  We can't see what the ducks are expanding into, but they are most assuredly expanding.

 

7. Because the universe cannot be evolving and degenerating at the same time. That degeneration ( a la the entropic/degenerative factor) will eventually result in the 'heat death' of the universe, a matter so deeply disturbing to Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann, that it contributed to his suicide by hanging himself. He is the man who originally developed the science of entropy as disorder and on his gravestone is engraved the entropy equation he became famous for; 9c3ccb9671a999dd7a548f1b30873c0c.png

Why can't the universe both evolve and degenerate at the same time?  Our bodies do.



#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2015 - 12:44 PM

No astronomer has ever observed the birth of a star.......despite cosmic evolution theory that stars are born of nebular dust and gravitational attraction. I am not talking about stars that slowly appear from behind a nebular gas cloud in distant space. That would not prove the birth of a star any more than the observation of a star appearing from behind the clouds of a night sky.

 

The closest thing they have to such an observation is T.Tauri. But T. Tauri is a class variable star and a prototype and it's origin was never observed.

We had a thread devoted to the topic of star birth.  It was "Why don't we see stars igniting."   The short answer is that we don't see stars igniting because we shouldn't expect to see them.  This is based on the ability of our telescopes to resolve individual stars for only limited distances and the vastness of the universe.

 

When you mentioned this before, you brought up T.Tauri.  At the time I asked if you meant "prototype" or "protostar."  I don't recall that you answered the question.

 

The process of star birth takes thousands of years.... at least.  T.Tauri is a protostar.  It is what we expect to see during the process of star birth.  Saying we can't use it as an example is like saying we can't use a woman in labor as an example of child birth.

 

9. All of the spiral galaxies from Andromeda (the nearest) to those that are supposed to be 12 to 15 billion light years out are mature galaxies. But that fact would be impossible if the universe is as old as evolutionists tell us.

The fact is we shouldn't even be able to SEE those 12-15 billion light year distant galaxies in a universe only 6,000 or so years old completely escapes Calypsis.  There is another possibility.... the universe is much OLDER than what we think.

 

That's all I have time for right now.....



#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 May 2015 - 12:51 PM

As #1 I agree that science cannot (yet) explain what caused the big bang or where it came from, although several possibilities are being explored. But there is a problem to your argument: besides that it is a blatant argument from ignorance it doesn't actually address the validity of the big bang itself (let alone biological evolution). At best it is an argument that can establish some kind of 'theistic evolution' if you will, and at worse it is a god of the gaps fallacy.

The use of the word "yet" in your first sentence infers a priori knowledge of what can not be the answer.. The human mind has the ability to, like many computer programs, Google for example, sugest or complete an entry without making a declarative statement verbal. Inferred in the mentioned sentence you have decided what cannot be a cause of the universe. Stop playing God. Do you really think we believe you are all-knowing?

I know of no one that observed (the alleged big bang and the first steps of evolution (I include myself). I admit that I did not watch God create the universe. It's hard not to be painted with the same brush you paint others if you claim godlike powers that you don't seem able to demonstrate. Stop playing God.

Did you forget the lesson that Jesus spoke of to take the log out of your eye before you try to take the splinter out of your brother's eye?

But ToE is a scientific theory that explains the unity and diversity of life. That's it. It makes a methodological naturalism assumption as does everything in science by default, but ontologically it makes no claims about materialism or the supernatural. The scope of ToE does not extend to abiogenesis or the creation of the universe, let alone the various astronomy and physics questions Calypsis posted.

Once more we are exposed to your Jehovian decrees of what went on in the past. These are assumptions because you were not there to observe what happened. Perhaps a spaghetti monster did it. Unfortunately the spaghetti monster would have to be alive and intelligent and observed by another intelligent being watching him or her create the universe. No intelligence. No observation. Your argument can also be deemed an argument from ignorance also. As my mom used to say, "the cuckoo calls himself by his own name."



I personally consider evolution an hypothesis. There is hardly a consensus that evolution to be able to do all the things some scientists claim it can do..

#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 01:00 PM

Actually, the Law of Conservation of Mass relates to chemistry. 

 

 

To my fellow posters: do you see just how fouled this kind of thinking is? As if MASS was not involved in the so-called 'big bang'. Are you kidding me?

 

Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing with his equation E = mc2.  In nuclear physics, we can and have produced mass.  That's what we do in the creation of new elements with greater masses than Uranium.  Of course, it takes huge amounts of energy to do this.

 

 

But new mass is not created, it is merely assimilated (transformed) from other sources. How can this former scientist from NASA possibly not know this?

 

BTW, don't we need to clarify what is meant by "evolution" in this context?  Certainly we aren't speaking of biological (ie: Darwinian) evolution as that particular branch of inquiry has nothing at all to do with most of your list.

 

 

 

There it is yet again! Never mind the fact that Darwin's bulldog, T.H. Huxley stated it clearly long ago, "Evolution is the whole of reality". Piasan doesn't care, he just tortures logic and makes things up whenever he feels it necessary. Biological evolution is just part of the entire whole so his statement was useless.

 


Do I have to explain the origin of light, heat, or gravity to learn and understand how they work?

 

 

 

 

His comrades in pseudo-science have tried it many times, so why not?

 

Origins2.png

The%20Spacetime%20Origin%20of%20the%20Un

The%20Theory%20of%20Everything%20by%20Ha

 

By way of analogy, saying "we don't understand the origin of life so evolution is false" is much like saying "we don't understand the origin of gravity, so gravity is false."

 

 

 

That's a false dichotomy itself. We CAN measure gravity...directly, experimentally, and with real physical conclusions.We cannot measure evolution because........in the words of those who have debated us (telling us countless times) 'but evolution takes to long to observe!".



#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 01:27 PM

piasan:

 

Do we need to know what the universe is expanding into in order to know that it is expanding?  If not, why is the question even relevant?

 

They can't even explain the expansion in the first place, much less what the universe is expanding into. Most of those of your ilk claim that the Big Bang was not an explosion to begin with and some have gotten downright snippy with me for suggesting it. BUT..........if there was no explosion THEN WHAT causes the expansion velocity in the first place ( a la 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)? Evoutionary cosmology is a failure in this regard but God's Word tells us what caused the expansion:

 

... I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; Isaiah 44:24. 

 

Therefore without God's Word in this matter we've got zip of an explanation. God told us about it but you don't believe Him.

 

This one is like saying there is one of these "rubber ducky" races on a foggy day.  We can't see what the ducks are expanding into, but they are most assuredly expanding.

 

 

 

But we can walk the distance to see what's in the fog. You can't do that with a telescope, not even the Hubble.

 

Why can't the universe both evolve and degenerate at the same time?  Our bodies do.

 

 

 

They aren't evolving, they are growing. Mere growth is not evolution....not by the classic definition of evolution we have been given by those who defined it.



#29 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 02 May 2015 - 01:42 PM

Sorry if there is any confusion. When you combine posts from two different threads, it still keeps them in the chronological order in which they were posted, so some of the discussion above may seem to jump back and forth. That's just because they were originally in two different threads.

 

BD



#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 01:48 PM

Sorry if there is any confusion. When you combine posts from two different threads, it still keeps them in the chronological order in which they were posted, so some of the discussion above may seem to jump back and forth. That's just because they were originally in two different threads.

 

BD

 

I didn't know that, but I've never done this before. Thanks. I may have bitten off more than I can chew here time wise, and it may take awhile but I can give many more than 200 reasons to reject evolution.



#31 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2015 - 02:09 PM

 

There was no 'big bang' nor can you demonstrate that there was. There was only a big creation by a mighty big Creator.

 

That's nice but irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

But any hypothesis that nature created matter is unscientific. I gave the law that tells us so.

 

Okay, and do you honestly think that the scientists that are working on this problem (most of whom are physicists) are not aware of the laws of physics, or will blatantly deceive academia and the public in some conspiracy? Or what? 

 

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Ignorance' is what evolutionists have about the origins of our world/universe. Your very first words, "I agree that science cannot (yet) explain ..." covers it all. You don't have a clue yet you tell me that our position is 'ignorance'.

 

Yes we are ignorant as to the origin of the big bang. I did not say your position is ignorance (although I think it is ignorant, but that is another discussion altogether), I said you are using a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. 

 

it doesn't actually address the validity of the big bang itself (let alone biological evolution).

 

Like I've said to you before, you are so far from reality that you can't even think clearly. I made it clear from the get-go that the 'Big Bang' is a myth because it requires nature to violate the Law of Conservation of Mass. But no one can demonstrate that nature violated that law because no one can show us that matter is created by anything or under any circumstances.

 

One of the points I was trying to make in my original post to you was that no one knows how the big bang came to be, so saying that the big bang must have violated conservation laws is misplaced.

 

If we live in a multiverse and two branes collided resulting in the formation of our universe then there would be no violation of conservation of energy. I don't really understand it myself (and I don't put a lot of weight in it personally as a possible origin for our universe) but apparently if you were to be inside a black hole you would see it expand, leading some to speculate that perhaps our universe is a black hole inside another universe, if that is the case then again there's no violation of energy conservation during its formation. And perhaps the most infamous scenario I've mentioned to you is the zero-sum idea of the universe, where the universe is made up of both positive and negative energy that balances out to exactly zero, meaning that it is possible for the universe to come from nothing without violating any laws of physics.

 

Again no one knows, but your insistence that the big bang must violate conservation laws is to not understand what you're talking about. 

 

Your 'god of the gaps' lunacy is not respected by any creationist I know of. Positing an all powerful, all knowing God as Creator of all things is the best possible explanation for the vastly complex universe and the even more vastly complex world of living organisms that we live in. Nothing else explains it all.

 

It explains everything by explaining nothing, it is a useless explanation - there is no substance to the explanation beyond 'God did it'. 



#32 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 May 2015 - 02:10 PM

Please, open such a thread.
But I suggest a certain new way of discussion. In stead of listing your list of 200 reasons; you post one reason, and explain as detailed as possible --and as coherent as possible -- that single reason. When consensus (either way) is reached, we can move om to reason two. And so on. Do you seem this a good idea?


O.k. I will, but Bonedigger will probably move this to another thread. 
 
1. Cause and Effect. Starting with cosmic evolution of the universe from the Big Bang. Evolution cannot explain the first cause nor what it was. The Word of God tells us that that first Cause was the Creator God. Having seen His power directly with quite a few witnesses over the years, I can believe it with no problem. 
 
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
 
(In anticipation of the usual question: 'What caused God?' Answer: He is an eternal Being that has always existed and always will exist)
 
I intend to give brief answers because I cannot afford to spend all the time it takes to make long detailed posts.
 
Mod edit: Some 16 or so posts from the "Overwhelming Number Of Scientists Believe In Evolution" thread, including this one, were moved here.
Bonedigger

I would like that we discuss one idea at a time. So we limit ourselves to this post. Is this possible?

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 02:31 PM

I would like that we discuss one idea at a time. So we limit ourselves to this post. Is this possible?

 

No, I won't do that. If I could see that there was even just one of you skeptics here on EFF that were honest in your assessments and conclusions about things then I would do so but by experience I know good and well what to expect from those of you who believe in an accidental universe. I have already probably taken on more than I should have, but I did this only to prove that I do have 200 reasons (& actually more than that in the long run) for rejecting evolution. To do it the way you would suggest would take probably over a year and I don't want that.

 

So just do what you usually do and select those points you wish to talk about and ignore the rest. It's such a common practice for you fellows anyway so that that shouldn't be a problem.



#34 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,071 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2015 - 02:39 PM

 

I don't like trying to communicate with you because you've destroyed your critical thinking skills about science by the acceptance  falsehoods. You just gave us one of them: "The scope of ToE does not extend to abiogenesis or the creation of the universe,"

 

What enormous lies you believe in. Like many of your comrades you treat the truth like its rubber and stretch things any way you think necessary to escape the reality of the Creator God and His written Word say about our world.

 

Would you please check out post #187 again and see why your notion is refuted by even those of your own persuasion.

 

Furthermore I have a list of many books authored by evolution scientists who reveal that evolution is indeed about the origins of life...

 

Origins6.pngOrigins3.pngOrigins2.pngOrigins7.pngOrigins4.png

 

Shall I post a dozen or more in addition to these? But maybe Scientific American and Neil de Grasse Tyson has no credibility with you. Maybe you know better about evolution theory than they do. Hmm?

 

When I say "ToE" I specifically mean "biological evolution". There is no single scientific theory that attempts to explain everything from the formation of the universe to biological changes. If you disagree please name this scientific theory. That said scientists and publishers take poetic license in their usage of "evolution", that you cannot distinguish between the technical and poetic uses of the word is troubling. 

 

You can post all the covers you want, my point is that you fundamentally don't understand the concept of a scientific theory having a scope of explanation, and confuse the poetic usage of the word with the technical use. 



#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 03:25 PM

Goku:

 

 

That's nice but irrelevant to the discussion

 

 
Demonstrating  the inability of nature to produce a 'big bang' and that matter could not therefore, be created from nothing is lrrelevant? Excuse me?

 

Okay, and do you honestly think that the scientists that are working on this problem (most of whom are physicists) are not aware of the laws of physics, or will blatantly deceive academia and the public in some conspiracy? Or what? 

 

 

 
Yes. Just like you are doing right here on EFF on a regular basis. You are an Orwellianized individual. You hold two ideas in your head at the same time that happen to contradict each other and accept them both as a reality: namely --- (1)that the Law of the Conservation of Mass is true (matter can neither be created nor destroyed) and yet, (2) nature created matter/mass via the big bang/singularity. Yup, that's Orwell's double-think in full living color.

 

Yes we are ignorant as to the origin of the big bang. I did not say your position is ignorance (although I think it is ignorant, but that is another discussion altogether), I said you are using a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance. 

 

 

 

To state that nature cannot and will not violate the Law of Conservation of Mass is not a 'logical fallacy'. But I recognize that I am dealing with someone who cannot even think straight so I am not surprised at all by your contradictory statement.

 

One of the points I was trying to make in my original post to you was that no one knows how the big bang came to be, so saying that the big bang must have violated conservation laws is misplaced.

 

 

 

And I would say that such a statement is 'nut's' and that you are 'crazy' but that is not your problem; your problem is a willful, deliberate rejection of revealed truth.

 

If we live in a multiverse and two branes collided resulting in the formation of our universe then there would be no violation of conservation of energy. I don't really understand it myself (and I don't put a lot of weight in it personally as a possible origin for our universe) but apparently if you were to be inside a black hole you would see it expand, leading some to speculate that perhaps our universe is a black hole inside another universe, if that is the case then again there's no violation of energy conservation during its formation. And perhaps the most infamous scenario I've mentioned to you is the zero-sum idea of the universe, where the universe is made up of both positive and negative energy that balances out to exactly zero, meaning that it is possible for the universe to come from nothing without violating any laws of physics.

 

 

 

Which is nonsense. You couldn't even tell us what the source of those 'positive & negative' energy sources are in the first place nor how they became positive & negative to begin with. Ah, but you believe in it anyway without evidence.

 

Again no one knows, but your insistence that the big bang must violate conservation laws is to not understand what you're talking about. 

 

 

 
That's your problem, fella.

 

It explains everything by explaining nothing, it is a useless explanation - there is no substance to the explanation beyond 'God did it'. 

 

 

 

Ah, but you say..................'evolution did it'......or perhaps, 'nature did it'. Right. :get_a_clue: 

 

That's Orwellian thought. A perfect explanation of the obvious makes no sense to one whose critical thinking skills have been numbed by the acceptance of lies.



#36 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 02 May 2015 - 03:39 PM

 

2. Evolution cannot explain how nature somehow created matter directly contrary to the Law of Conservation of Mass.

 

Quote:The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reaction

 

did you know there are violations of the law of conservation of energy? The expansion of the universe has a funny effect (which is rather subtle but I can explain in more detail if you wish) in which energy is lost from the system and as far as we know it goes nowhere. Some people suggest that it goes into the expansion itself, but there is no experimental data to support this. So your point about conservation of mass (which really really should be conservation of energy, as mass is not always conserved even in everyday conditions. But let's not split hairs)

 

BTW, before you claim that we don't know what caused expansion, we do know it happens, we don't know why but we know it does happen and that it causes energy to up and leave the system



#37 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 02 May 2015 - 03:59 PM

 

 

 

 

Which is nonsense. You couldn't even tell us what the source of those 'positive & negative' energy sources are in the first place nor how they became positive & negative to begin with. Ah, but you believe in it anyway without evidence.

Positive and negative energies add up to zero, and can spontaneously happen. You can even observe this effect in Hawking Radiation, in which two virtual particles are created and one falls into the black hole while the other escapes. Due to a subtle phenomenon the particle that falls in must have negative energy. These virtual particles appeared spontaneously from nowhere, violating no conservation laws. 

 

In other words: Something can be created from nothing, it turns out. The "source" you're looking is not necessary, it's like taking the following expression:

 

0 = (+1) + (-1)

 

And claiming that it's false because you don't know how those ones came from nothing

 

What you are also doing is an argument from ignorance. From Wikipedia: 

 

[an] Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

 

What you are saying is that since we don't know what caused [insert thing here], then your god (and your god only) must have done it, without offering any evidence besides the Bible as a justification. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At best you can claim that there's not enough evidence for the Big Bang (even though it has been verified with a 1 to 300000 chance of the null hypothesis being true), which isn't at all evidence for intelligent design.



#38 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 04:48 PM

Iguana:

 

 

Positive and negative energies add up to zero, and can spontaneously happen. You can even observe this effect in Hawking Radiation, in which two virtual particles are created and one falls into the black hole while the other escapes. Due to a subtle phenomenon the particle that falls in must have negative energy. These virtual particles appeared spontaneously from nowhere, violating no conservation laws. 

 

Hawking doesn't believe in black holes any longer. So now what are you going to do?

 

Stephen Hawking Stopped Believing in Black Holes

 

http://www.newrepubl...oles-dont-exist

 

This article reveals the terrible confusion among evolutionary cosmologists. But Hawking isn't the only one having problems with the 'big bang':

 

Quote: By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

http://phys.org/news...lack-holes.html

Read more at: http://phys.org/news...-holes.html#jCp

 

In other words: Something can be created from nothing, it turns out. The "source" you're looking is not necessary, it's like taking the following expression:

 

0 = (+1) + (-1)

 

 

 

That is such idiocy I can't even put into words how to describe it. Your 0 = (+1) + (-1) is saying NOTHING = NOTHING.You can't even explain the origin of positive and negative forces. But the universe is not made of NOTHING nor did nature make it from NOTHING. There is something there that we can measure as proof of its existence. Perhaps you have heard of it; It's called matter.

 

You have a lot to learn, young man, but you aren't going to get the truth from evolutionist teachers. Your young mind is being ruined by them.

 

And claiming that it's false because you don't know where those ones came from nothing

 

'those ones'? That is not only not scientifically correct it is not even grammatically correct.

 

What you are also doing is an argument from ignorance. From Wikipedia: 

 

[an] Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

 

 

That's nonsense. Read carefully: 

 

Quote: The Law of Conservation of Mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions. 

http://www.nature.co...f-mass-17395478

 

Quote: "The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed

 

Quote: 

  1. law of conservation of matter - a fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolatedsystem

 

I am not giving you guesswork, fella, I am giving you three different well established laws of science and none of your magical, mumbo-jumbo is going to change the fact that those laws have never been abrogated.

 

What you are saying is that since we don't know what caused [insert thing here], then your god (and your god only) must have done it,

 

 

 

I am saying that He(God Almighty) made it obvious. He not only created the laws of science to help people like yourself see that nature could not do what only He could do. BUT......He also inspired certain men to write the creation account so that humans could know about it and understand why the world is here. That's found in the scriptures.

 

without offering any evidence besides the Bible as a justification.

 

 

 

Well, well, well, it seems you have become a true Orwellian like Goku and piasan. Congratulations....or perhaps I should realistically say, "Shame on you for not paying attention to the details that we (i.e. me, Enoch, Mike, Mikethewiz, etc.) have been giving you. Enoch in particular wiped the floor with evolution theory before your very eyes but you weren't honest enough to admit it.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

 

That's what we've been saying to you accidentalists: it CANNOT happen by itself and NONE of you can reproduce the so-called big bang nor anything like it.

 

At best you can claim that there's not enough evidence for the Big Bang (even though it has been verified with a 1 to 300000 chance of the null hypothesis being true)

 

That's called bull...oney. :rotfl2:

 

Any examination of something like the single living cell (of any organism!) in all of its vast complexity shoots that idea down in the mind of any honest observer. 



#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 05:18 PM

14. Earth's gravity is getting weaker as time passes.

 

15. Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker as time passes;

 

http://content.time....,829122,00.html

 

http://www.zmescienc...d-be-very-weak/

 

Even from an evolutionist standpoint if everything in our universe that has mass is actually moving further apart then the gravitational forces are getting weaker.

 

F=G×((m1.m2)÷r2) with r increasing, therefore F decreasing

 


#40 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 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 02 May 2015 - 05:45 PM

16. The Sun is degenerating.

 

Evolutionists delighted in poking fun at creationists who, during the 80's & 90's claimed the sun was shrinking, never mind the fact that the original idea came from evolutionists (The American Astronomical Society, 1979 by John Eddy and Aram Boornazian).

 

Yet the Jekyl and Hyde evolutionists freely admit that the sun is burning off 4 trillion metric tons of mass every single second.

 

http://www.omgfacts....-second-ab572-1

 

That loss of mass is not being replaced and like all other suns/stars the sun will eventually Nova. Folks, that is degeneration, not evolution.

 

17. Betelgeuse lost 15% of its size in 15 years.

 

http://www.newscient...ml#.VUVuU7NZ3dk

 

Again, remembering the mockery we were subjected to concerning the 'shrinking sun' fiasco; it is somehow a funny joke to suggest that our sun is 'shrinking' but we are to take the shrinking of Betegeuse (much, much larger than our sun) seriously. 

 

http://esciencenews....ously.shrinking

 

Quote: "The red supergiant star Betelgeuse, the bright reddish star in the constellation Orion, has steadily shrunk over the past 15 years, according to University of California, Berkeley, researchers. Long-term monitoring by UC Berkeley's Infrared Spatial Interferometer (ISI) on the top of Mt. Wilson in Southern California shows that Betelgeuse (bet' el juz), which is so big that in our solar system it would reach to the orbit of Jupiter, has shrunk in diameter by more than 15 percent since 1993.

 

18. Mankind has observed stars go through nova's but no one has observed the birth of a star. 

 

All of this bespeaks of a degenerating universe, not an evolving one.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users