War times?

[tunaman7]

There is absolutely no evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection proves change of species.
• That aliens created billions of species on earth is not credible. What then, created the aliens?
• Whales did not evolve from dogs.
• Human ears did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Human lungs did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•There is absolutely no evolution evidence that life is an accident.
•Evolution does not explain life, consciousness, intelligence or thoughts.
•Because of this, modern Charles Darwin's theory of evolution evidence is not entirely credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes has some serious flaws in the dating process.
• Uniform decay of radioisotopes has been disproved by Creation Science.
•The Big Bang is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That electrons and protons came from nowhere is difficult to believe, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Black holes sucking up stars is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Time dilation is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Einstein warping of space and space contraction are not credible and cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The existence of negative mirror universes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured
•That the creation of cells, DNA molecules and galaxies evolved by accident is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That life began in a methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide atmosphere is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Your twin brother travelling at the speed of light and aging less is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That particles pop in and out of the universe at random is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Stars travelling faster than the speed of light as a result of the Big Bang or any other reason is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The distance between galaxies at the limits of the universe is the same as they are everywhere. Therefore, the universe may not be expanding
•Red shift of light due to velocity and not gas and dust in space is not credible.
•That the speed of light is a constant is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Spontaneous punctuated equilibrium is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The theory of relativity is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Antimatter as a result of black holes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Photons are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

THEORY,THEORY AND MORE THEORY THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS.

I think your a bit confused on terminology. A scientific theory is the same as scientific fact. Evolution is accepted by 99% of the scientific community. It happened. End of story.

 

[tunaman7]

You need to review the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field. The God particle has been found and observed. For years Creationist hung their hat on that God created the universe because sub-atomic particles (electrons, quarks etc) had no mass. If they had no mass then they couldn't have created Protons and Nuetons that in turn creates the atoms and inturns creates the molecules. God had to give mass to the mass-less because we couldn't find the Higgs Boson. Well...they found it. In 2014. The Higgs Boson was discovered which validates the Higgs Field which gives mass at the quantum level. No need for God.

Big Bang has been heard and expansion of the universe can be seen. We can peer back about 14 Billion yeas to the most early formations of stars and galaxies. Will we ever be able to directly see the Big Bang...no! 250,000 years after the Big Bang was light was first radiated into the early universe.

It's hard...I know...for people to accept that science has a lot of the answers but not all the answers. When you ask us if we know what caused this or what caused that and we don't know then we will say we don't know...but we will try to find the answer thru evidence that holds up to scrutiny of the scientific community. We will never say "it's god"

 

[LittleTom]

Thanks tuna.

 

[zombieslayer]

There is absolutely no evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection proves change of species.
• That aliens created billions of species on earth is not credible. What then, created the aliens?
• Whales did not evolve from dogs.
• Human ears did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Human lungs did not evolve from fish gills, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•There is absolutely no evolution evidence that life is an accident.
•Evolution does not explain life, consciousness, intelligence or thoughts.
•Because of this, modern Charles Darwin's theory of evolution evidence is not entirely credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes has some serious flaws in the dating process.
• Uniform decay of radioisotopes has been disproved by Creation Science.
•The Big Bang is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That electrons and protons came from nowhere is difficult to believe, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Black holes sucking up stars is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Time dilation is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Einstein warping of space and space contraction are not credible and cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The existence of negative mirror universes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured
•That the creation of cells, DNA molecules and galaxies evolved by accident is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That life began in a methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide atmosphere is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Your twin brother travelling at the speed of light and aging less is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•That particles pop in and out of the universe at random is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Stars travelling faster than the speed of light as a result of the Big Bang or any other reason is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The distance between galaxies at the limits of the universe is the same as they are everywhere. Therefore, the universe may not be expanding
•Red shift of light due to velocity and not gas and dust in space is not credible.
•That the speed of light is a constant is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•Quantum tunnelling is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Spontaneous punctuated equilibrium is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
•The theory of relativity is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Antimatter as a result of black holes is not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.
• Photons are not credible, cannot be tested, observed or measured.

Hogslayer, I agree with your sentiment, and from one slayer to another, Thank You!!!

IF IT IS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN A LAB, THEN IT DOES NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD", AND BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS A METAPHYSICAL THEORY, NOT A PHYSICAL FACT.


And let's be clear about the terminology 'Evolution'.

What we are talking about here is MACRO-EVOLUTION, which is where one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal.
Example: a reptile becomes a bird

Well, there are over 1 million fossil species on record, but NOT 1 transitional species showing some kind of transition or change from 1 kind to another.
THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT MACRO-EVOLUTION ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!!

AND MACRO-EVOLUTION is not reproducible in a lab, so it doesn't qualify as the Scientific Method!!!
So, it is actually a METAPHYSICAL THEORY!!!

Does MICRO-EVOLUTION, which is change inside a species, occur?
Of course. WE CAN VERIFY THIS IN THE LAB.

We can see that with dogs. There a chihuahuas and great danes and everything in between, and they all came from a common wolf-like dog.
So, MICRO-EVOLUTION does qualify under the Scientific Method.

BUT AGAIN, THIS IS CHANGE WITHIN A SPECIES, NOT FROM KIND TO ANOTHER KIND, AND THEREFORE NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION!!!

(And actually the example given of dogs is still not a mindless, unguided process, like evolution, because it actually happens because of human direction.)

8) 8) 8)

 

[zombieslayer]

I think your a bit confused on terminology. A scientific theory is the same as scientific fact. Evolution is accepted by 99% of the scientific community. It happened. End of story.

Sorry Tunaman, you are a bit confused.

A theory is not necessarily a fact.

Here is a simple definition that I pulled from:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/

1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.


So, theories can explain the facts, or theories can be simply 'an idea'.


And 99% of America thinks steroids are the same a cocaine and heroin, so why are you using them?
If 99% of America believes this, does that make them right and you wrong?
8) 8) 8)

 

[LittleTom]

I dont know why you use steroids but i use them to build more muscle... By the way, we have 98% the same make up as a chimp and 50% the same make as a fucking banana. Every fucking thing on this planet is made of the same stuff.... But not our gentle souls which will rise to heaven where we will live forever as king of the chimps and revel in our own self awareness. Just because we dont know how the first cell mutated into what we see around us dosnt mean shit. Anyone with half a brain can see we evolved from everything else.

 

[zombieslayer]

science does not back up creationism, if it did most actual scientists would back it.
most who do arent even real scientists,

I humbly disagree Grim. Your statements are simply not correct.

Below is a List of PhD Scientists who believe Creation, taken from the book:
In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/1864364432

ALL PhD SCIENTISTS:
John Ashton Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Victoria University, Melbourne, and Adjunct Professor of Applied Sciences at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University
Jeremy L. Walter, Mechanical Engineering
Jerry R. Bergman, Biology
John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Paul Giem, Medical Research
Henry Zuill, Biology
Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Keith H. Wanser, Physics
Timothy G. Standish, Biology
John R. Rankin, Mathematical Physics
Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
James S. Allan, Genetics
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Angela Meyer, Horticulture Science
Andrew McIntosh, Mathematics
John P. Marcus, Biochemistry
Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
John R. Baumgardner, Geophysics
Arthur Jones, Biology
George F. Howe, Botany
A. J. Monty White, Physical Chemistry
D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Walter J. Veith, Zoology
Danny R. Faulkner, Astronomy
Edmond W. Holroyd, Meteorology
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Jack Cuozzo, Orthodontics
Andrew Snelling, Geology
Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
John Morris, Geological Engineering
Elaine Kennedy, Geology
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
Larry Vardiman, Meteorology
Geoff Downes, Forestry Research
Wayne Frair, Biology
Sid Cole, Physical Chemistry
Don B. DeYoung, Physics
George S. Hawke, Meteorology
Kurt P. Wise, Geology
J. H. John Peet, Chemistry
Werner Gitt, Information Science

AND HERE IS A LIST OF NOBEL LAUREATE SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVE IN CREATION/INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

CHARLES H. TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics(Invented the Laser and the Maser. In addition to the Nobel Prize, Townes has received the Templeton Prize, for contributions to the understanding of religion, and a number of other prizes as well as 27 honorary degrees from various universities.)
ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe)
MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism)
SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

As we all can see, you don't have to check your brains at the door to believe that Evolution DID NOT created everything OR anything.
Evolution has become a sacred cow, in the past 50 years, and the percept is that anyone who doesn't believe Evolution must be an idiot.

But as we all can see from the LISTS above, that IS NOT the case.
The people on these list are more brilliant than most people in the world, but they understand that Evolution simply CANNOT explain SO MUCH of this Universe.

And not just Physics, Evolution cannot BEGIN to explain IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY says all the parts have to be in place, fully formed, functioning, and
assembled in the correct order for something to be usable.

The eye, for example, would have to have evolved whole, fully formed and assembled in the correct sequence otherwise it would be useless had it evolved in individual parts, and discarded by Evolution.

The same can be said of our reproductive systems.
AND the male and female reproductive systems would have to evolved at the same time for them to function together and reproduction to occur.
If any of the pieces were missing, you get NADA.

The same can be said of our digestive, respiratory, circulatory, etc., systems.
And ALL the systems have to function together AND be passed on, by DNA, genetic code, to the next generation.

Even Charles Darwin said, regarding the eye:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

And we know a lot more about the eye, the cell and DNA than anyone could have imagined in Darwin's day.

Evolution says: NOBODY + NO THING = EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING

To say that NO THING became EVERYTHING is simply being intellectually dishonest with ourselves and each other.

 

[Hogslayer]

You need to review the Higgs Boson and the Higgs field. The God particle has been found and observed. For years Creationist hung their hat on that God created the universe because sub-atomic particles (electrons, quarks etc) had no mass. If they had no mass then they couldn't have created Protons and Nuetons that in turn creates the atoms and inturns creates the molecules. God had to give mass to the mass-less because we couldn't find the Higgs Boson. Well...they found it. In 2014. The Higgs Boson was discovered which validates the Higgs Field which gives mass at the quantum level. No need for God.

Big Bang has been heard and expansion of the universe can be seen. We can peer back about 14 Billion yeas to the most early formations of stars and galaxies. Will we ever be able to directly see the Big Bang...no! 250,000 years after the Big Bang was light was first radiated into the early universe.

It's hard...I know...for people to accept that science has a lot of the answers but not all the answers. When you ask us if we know what caused this or what caused that and we don't know then we will say we don't know...but we will try to find the answer thru evidence that holds up to scrutiny of the scientific community. We will never say "it's god"

I'm not trying to start a fight or sound like a dick but your 1 hour Nat Geo education regarding CERN hardly makes your opinion worth listening too. I'm thinking maybe you should leave the gathering of real facts to the professionals. Nat Geo has been known to push false narratives in order to raise funds. Similar to NPR and the like. Simply put the data proving black matters existence is not public so how would you know anything to the contrary. Why would they say this and that making use believe they have found the GOD Particle? Refer to the latter

 

[zombieslayer]

I'm not trying to start a fight or sound like a dick but your 1 hour Nat Geo education regarding CERN hardly makes your opinion worth listening too. I'm thinking maybe you should leave the gathering of real facts to the professionals. Nat Geo has been known to push false narratives in order to raise funds. Similar to NPR and the like. Simply put the data proving black matters existence is not public so how would you know anything to the contrary. Why would they say this and that making use believe they have found the GOD Particle? Refer to the latter

I don't know much about this topic Tuna referred to, I'll have to look it up to comment on it directly, but I certainly agree with you that Nat Geo and NPR definitely push communist, atheist, liberal agendas.

For someone to definitely say that God does not exist, that person would have to be God to know everything, including that there is no God.

 

[zombieslayer]

I dont know why you use steroids but i use them to build more muscle... By the way, we have 98% the same make up as a chimp and 50% the same make as a fucking banana. Every fucking thing on this planet is made of the same stuff.... But not our gentle souls which will rise to heaven where we will live forever as king of the chimps and revel in our own self awareness. Just because we dont know how the first cell mutated into what we see around us dosnt mean shit. Anyone with half a brain can see we evolved from everything else.

LT, try to be reasonable.

Common design implies a common Designer,

Not that NO THING created EVERYTHING and that EVERYTHING became more and more complex until out of the slim life emerged, not to mention the fact that 'non-living matter' doesn't become 'living matter'.
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EXAMPLE OF EITHER OF THESE 2 THIS HAPPENING EVER!!!

The genetics similarities you referenced above are evidence for a Designer.
The Designer designed a structure(genome) that worked well for carrying information to pass on life on this planet call Earth, and He used it not just in us, but in all the life on this planet.

What would you expect?
That we would have a different structure to carry information than chimps or bananas have.
Maybe a floppy disk inserted in our ear would have worked better?
Just kidding. 🙂

But, like most land creatures have 4 limbs,
it's because the Designer design the laws of Physics and Motion,
and He knew 4 limbs would work well for terrestrial motoring around.

Common design implies a common Designer.
8) 8) 8)

 

[zombieslayer]

Btw,
I know things have gotten a little heated at times in this thread, but
I really appreciate you Brothers participating in this topic.

I believe it was Socrates who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

We should examine these things.
Chimps can't.

And as the thread is titled 'War times', this truly is a war.

THIS IS A WAR FOR THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF HUMANITY.

Evolution says WE DON'T MATTER
The Creator says WE DO MATTER

Right now, the Evolutionist have the microphone all over the news outlets and academia(schools and universities),
but just because something is said long enough and loud enough doesn't make it true.

I hope that we will continue this dialogue, and reason together, as we are the only creatures on the planet that have the ability to consider and dialogue and reason together.

8) 8) 8)

 

[tunaman7]

I don't know much about this topic Tuna referred to, I'll have to look it up to comment on it directly, but I certainly agree with you that Nat Geo and NPR definitely push communist, atheist, liberal agendas.

For someone to definitely say that God does not exist, that person would have to be God to know everything, including that there is no God.

You can't scientifically prove a negative. The burden of proof for God's existence is yours!

 

[tunaman7]

Hogslayer, I agree with your sentiment, and from one slayer to another, Thank You!!!

IF IT IS NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN A LAB, THEN IT DOES NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD", AND BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS A METAPHYSICAL THEORY, NOT A PHYSICAL FACT.


And let's be clear about the terminology 'Evolution'.

What we are talking about here is MACRO-EVOLUTION, which is where one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal.
Example: a reptile becomes a bird

Well, there are over 1 million fossil species on record, but NOT 1 transitional species showing some kind of transition or change from 1 kind to another.
THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT MACRO-EVOLUTION ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!!

AND MACRO-EVOLUTION is not reproducible in a lab, so it doesn't qualify as the Scientific Method!!!
So, it is actually a METAPHYSICAL THEORY!!!

Does MICRO-EVOLUTION, which is change inside a species, occur?
Of course. WE CAN VERIFY THIS IN THE LAB.

We can see that with dogs. There a chihuahuas and great danes and everything in between, and they all came from a common wolf-like dog.
So, MICRO-EVOLUTION does qualify under the Scientific Method.

BUT AGAIN, THIS IS CHANGE WITHIN A SPECIES, NOT FROM KIND TO ANOTHER KIND, AND THEREFORE NOT MACRO-EVOLUTION!!!

(And actually the example given of dogs is still not a mindless, unguided process, like evolution, because it actually happens because of human direction.)

8) 8) 8)

Reptiles and birds share common skeletal traits. Dinosaurs were found with feathers. The Legs of dinosaurs and today's birds are very similar. Evolution happened.

 

[tunaman7]

Believers are gonna beleive. Non-Beleivers are gonna use science. So now you discount the science to fit your beleifs.

 

[tunaman7]

Sorry Tunaman, you are a bit confused.

A theory is not necessarily a fact.

Here is a simple definition that I pulled from:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/

1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.


So, theories can explain the facts, or theories can be simply 'an idea'.


And 99% of America thinks steroids are the same a cocaine and heroin, so why are you using them?
If 99% of America believes this, does that make them right and you wrong?
8) 8) 8)

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

 

[LittleTom]

Its really fucking funny because if i follow the logic here (i use that term loosely) your "god" would still have to come from another god who came from another god.... Its FUCKING HILARIOUS. You argue its impossible for something to come from nothing yet your magic man is the exception to the rule. Instead of the realistic possibility of shit floating around in space coming together to form something your answer IS A MYTHOLOGICAL CREATURE WAVING A WAND!!! but..... Where did he come from if NOTHING CAN COME FROM NOTHING. Lol.. Just insaine.

 

[Eman]

The anunaki genetically engineered modern day humans by crossbreeding with homo erectus. they did this to use us as a slave race to mine gold from the earth. Now here we are. Pretty simple.

 

[blasson]

.. Where did he come from.

He came from Bethlehem...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zombieslayer]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation

Sorry Tunaman, you are STILL a bit confused.

You obviously didn't read the 2 definitions of 'scientific theory' that I've already posted.

My post earlier:

"A theory is not necessarily a fact.

Here is a simple definition that I pulled from:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-fact-and-theory/

1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.


So, 1)theories can explain the facts, OR 2)theories can be simply 'an idea'."

 

[T-bar]

Religion can't be proven or disproved any more than you can prove or disprove String theories. To argue an opinion is a waste of time because at the end of the day it is nothing more than the opinion holders belief. The only person more foolish than the person who insists their belief is correct, is the person who wastes their time insisting it isn't. But that's just what I believe.