Pahu;1488363 wrote: Where are those of countless sources of hard evidence which prove the existence of evolution?
I don't intend to follow your lead of pasting the same old stuff over & over again. Try reading through the thread. I've provided you with plenty of examples, as have others. Just because you ignore & deny their existence, like an ostrich with its head in the sand, doesn't make it all go away.
Now, I say again - meet the challenge.
Science Disproves Evolution
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488428 wrote: I don't intend to follow your lead of pasting the same old stuff over & over again. Try reading through the thread. I've provided you with plenty of examples, as have others. Just because you ignore & deny their existence, like an ostrich with its head in the sand, doesn't make it all go away.
Now, I say again - meet the challenge.
More proof that Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science!
Now, I say again - meet the challenge.
More proof that Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488430 wrote: More proof that Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science!
Science is a matter of gathering evidence & facts. That is what science is. From this evidence hypotheses are formed. With additional supporting evidence the hypotheses then move up the line to become theories. By evolution being called a theory confirms the existence of supporting evidence. The rubbish Walt Brown comes up with is barely even a hypothesis as it has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Anyway - enough of trying to change the subject again. I still say to you - answer the challenge.
Science is a matter of gathering evidence & facts. That is what science is. From this evidence hypotheses are formed. With additional supporting evidence the hypotheses then move up the line to become theories. By evolution being called a theory confirms the existence of supporting evidence. The rubbish Walt Brown comes up with is barely even a hypothesis as it has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Anyway - enough of trying to change the subject again. I still say to you - answer the challenge.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488433 wrote: Science is a matter of gathering evidence & facts. That is what science is. From this evidence hypotheses are formed. With additional supporting evidence the hypotheses then move up the line to become theories. By evolution being called a theory confirms the existence of supporting evidence. The rubbish Walt Brown comes up with is barely even a hypothesis as it has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Evolution is not a theory, it is only called a theory. It is a disproved hypothesis.
Give us an example of Walt Brown't "rubbish".
Here are more facts about science that evolution does not comply with:
Four Essentials of the Scientific Method
Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:
1 Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2 Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
3 Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4 Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."
Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.
When Does the Scientific Method Fail?
Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena." If the hypothesis-testing process fails to eliminate most of the personal and cultural biases of the community of investigators, false hypotheses can survive the testing process and then be accepted as correct descriptions of the way the world works. This has happened in the past, and it happens today.
Some of the most glaring examples of this failure of the scientific method today have to do with the issue of origins. There are two fairly obvious reasons for this:
1) many of the crucial processes occurred in the past and are difficult to test in the present; and
2) personal biases are especially strong on topics related to origins because of the wider implications.
Conclusion
In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to short-circuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3749/218/
Evolution is not a theory, it is only called a theory. It is a disproved hypothesis.
Give us an example of Walt Brown't "rubbish".
Here are more facts about science that evolution does not comply with:
Four Essentials of the Scientific Method
Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists, including Wolfs, boil them down to the four following essentials:
1 Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2 Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
3 Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4 Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."
Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.
When Does the Scientific Method Fail?
Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method does not provide "an accurate representation of the world"--that is, a correct description of the way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above, "personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena." If the hypothesis-testing process fails to eliminate most of the personal and cultural biases of the community of investigators, false hypotheses can survive the testing process and then be accepted as correct descriptions of the way the world works. This has happened in the past, and it happens today.
Some of the most glaring examples of this failure of the scientific method today have to do with the issue of origins. There are two fairly obvious reasons for this:
1) many of the crucial processes occurred in the past and are difficult to test in the present; and
2) personal biases are especially strong on topics related to origins because of the wider implications.
Conclusion
In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own biases and personal preferences to short-circuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/3749/218/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488435 wrote: Evolution is not a theory, it is only called a theory.
It is called a theory because it is a theory. It was formulated on existing evidence. Further evidence is constantly being found to support it
It is a disproved hypothesis.
Even if it were a hypothesis it couldn't be disproved because a hypothesis is an abstract notion with no foundation of evidence. Walt Brown's fantasies are just that. As you know, I have a hypothesis that flying fluffy pink elephants exist. Now, you come up with evidence to prove otherwise.
Give us an example of Walt Brown't "rubbish".
Simple - you're constantly pasting it.
1 Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Condition met & constantly being observed.
2 Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
Condition met - Ever since Darwin came up with the notion of Origin of Species
3 Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Condition met. This has been done for centuries with selective breeding of plants & animals. It has been observed in laboratory conditions where conditions are changed then the animals adapt to those conditions in just the ways predicted.
4 Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
Condition met. Nearly all schoolchildren have done experiments to observe how different plants & animals adapt to their environment. It is such elementary knowledge. More advanced investigations are being done in independent universities throughout the world.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."
Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.
Your (Brown's) own words have just supported the case for evolution being a bona fide theory.
Come on - We're still waiting:
MEET MY CHALLENGE, ADMIT DEFEAT OR ALLOW YOUR REFUSAL TO MEET THE CHALLENGE TO BE AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT BY DEFAULT !!!
It is called a theory because it is a theory. It was formulated on existing evidence. Further evidence is constantly being found to support it
It is a disproved hypothesis.
Even if it were a hypothesis it couldn't be disproved because a hypothesis is an abstract notion with no foundation of evidence. Walt Brown's fantasies are just that. As you know, I have a hypothesis that flying fluffy pink elephants exist. Now, you come up with evidence to prove otherwise.
Give us an example of Walt Brown't "rubbish".
Simple - you're constantly pasting it.
1 Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Condition met & constantly being observed.
2 Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
Condition met - Ever since Darwin came up with the notion of Origin of Species
3 Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
Condition met. This has been done for centuries with selective breeding of plants & animals. It has been observed in laboratory conditions where conditions are changed then the animals adapt to those conditions in just the ways predicted.
4 Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
Condition met. Nearly all schoolchildren have done experiments to observe how different plants & animals adapt to their environment. It is such elementary knowledge. More advanced investigations are being done in independent universities throughout the world.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."
Wolfs further notes that this necessity of experiment in the method is tantamount to requiring that a scientific hypothesis be testable. "Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." It is fairly obvious that if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it should more properly be called a conjecture or speculation, in which case the scientific method can say little about it.
Your (Brown's) own words have just supported the case for evolution being a bona fide theory.
Come on - We're still waiting:
MEET MY CHALLENGE, ADMIT DEFEAT OR ALLOW YOUR REFUSAL TO MEET THE CHALLENGE TO BE AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT BY DEFAULT !!!
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488439 wrote: It is called a theory because it is a theory. It was formulated on existing evidence. Further evidence is constantly being found to support it
Even if it were a hypothesis it couldn't be disproved because a hypothesis is an abstract notion with no foundation of evidence. Walt Brown's fantasies are just that. As you know, I have a hypothesis that flying fluffy pink elephants exist. Now, you come up with evidence to prove otherwise.
Simple - you're constantly pasting it.
Condition met & constantly being observed.
Condition met - Ever since Darwin came up with the notion of Origin of Species
Condition met. This has been done for centuries with selective breeding of plants & animals. It has been observed in laboratory conditions where conditions are changed then the animals adapt to those conditions in just the ways predicted.
Condition met. Nearly all schoolchildren have done experiments to observe how different plants & animals adapt to their environment. It is such elementary knowledge. More advanced investigations are being done in independent universities throughout the world.
Your (Brown's) own words have just supported the case for evolution being a bona fide theory.
Come on - We're still waiting:
MEET MY CHALLENGE, ADMIT DEFEAT OR ALLOW YOUR REFUSAL TO MEET THE CHALLENGE TO BE AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT BY DEFAULT !!!
What a pathetic list of evidence free dogmatic assertions!
Even if it were a hypothesis it couldn't be disproved because a hypothesis is an abstract notion with no foundation of evidence. Walt Brown's fantasies are just that. As you know, I have a hypothesis that flying fluffy pink elephants exist. Now, you come up with evidence to prove otherwise.
Simple - you're constantly pasting it.
Condition met & constantly being observed.
Condition met - Ever since Darwin came up with the notion of Origin of Species
Condition met. This has been done for centuries with selective breeding of plants & animals. It has been observed in laboratory conditions where conditions are changed then the animals adapt to those conditions in just the ways predicted.
Condition met. Nearly all schoolchildren have done experiments to observe how different plants & animals adapt to their environment. It is such elementary knowledge. More advanced investigations are being done in independent universities throughout the world.
Your (Brown's) own words have just supported the case for evolution being a bona fide theory.
Come on - We're still waiting:
MEET MY CHALLENGE, ADMIT DEFEAT OR ALLOW YOUR REFUSAL TO MEET THE CHALLENGE TO BE AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT BY DEFAULT !!!
What a pathetic list of evidence free dogmatic assertions!
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Alright - one link at random to add to the list of evidence already presented:
Evolution
So you have obviously conceded defeat on my challenge inasmuch as none of the names & publications have any relevance to each other because, as per the terms of my challenge, your refusal to defend it defaults as an admission of defeat.
Evolution
So you have obviously conceded defeat on my challenge inasmuch as none of the names & publications have any relevance to each other because, as per the terms of my challenge, your refusal to defend it defaults as an admission of defeat.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488443 wrote: Alright - one link at random to add to the list of evidence already presented:
Evolution
So you have obviously conceded defeat on my challenge inasmuch as none of the names & publications have any relevance to each other because, as per the terms of my challenge, your refusal to defend it defaults as an admission of defeat.
I have met your challenge several times and you have chosen to ignore it. As for evolution, here are the facts:
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs! This curious situation is illustrated below in quotations from several leading evolutionary scientists.
THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE
No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.
"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer."
"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.
[continue]
Evolution
So you have obviously conceded defeat on my challenge inasmuch as none of the names & publications have any relevance to each other because, as per the terms of my challenge, your refusal to defend it defaults as an admission of defeat.
I have met your challenge several times and you have chosen to ignore it. As for evolution, here are the facts:
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs! This curious situation is illustrated below in quotations from several leading evolutionary scientists.
THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE
No Evolution at Present.
The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.
"Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer."
"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."
Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ."
[continue]
[continued]
No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."
Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.
"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself."
One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."
No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."
This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.
"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."
As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences
"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic."
"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"
No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.
"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12
Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!
". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not."
"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
[continue]
[continued]
No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.
"Evolution is . . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself."
One would think that in the 125 years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."
No Fossil Evidence.
It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ."
This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.
"As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ."
As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:
"In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ."
No Order in the Fossils.
Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences
"The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic."
"I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it."
The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.
"And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"
No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible.
The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.
"How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question. . . ." 12
Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!
". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not."
"Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
No Evidence From Similarities.
The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series."
[continue]
[continued]
No Evidence From Similarities.
The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.
The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs.
The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.
". . . the theory of recapitulation . . . should be defunct today."
"An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."
[continue]
[continued]
No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs.
The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.
". . . the theory of recapitulation . . . should be defunct today."
"An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION
In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also.
What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."
[continue]
[continued]
THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION
In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also.
What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation."
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
[continued]
But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.
There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, says,
"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."
That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!
But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.
The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model!"
Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.
The Vanishing Case for Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
[continued]
But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.
There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, says,
"No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."
That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!
But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.
The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."
While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model!"
Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.
The Vanishing Case for Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You have not met the challenge once. I have clearly stated the terms. All you have chosen to do is to paste more rubbish that everyone else ignores because we've seen it all before - over & over again.
My challenge was to simply take any one of your famous list from Who's Who & match it to the relevant publication & item. The closest you came was to quote that of some writer who was quoting someone else on something totally unrelated. Show me anywhere where you have close to meeting these terms - and that does not mean pasting another chapter of Walt Brown's. In fact, Walt Brown's book is not even one of those listed publications. The reason you fail to do so is simple. Your only source of information is his book - your Bible. Because he is a charlatan who chooses to make unfounded claims without substantiating any of them he gives a list of impressive names and a list of impressive publications in an attempt to imply that there is some correlation between them. If there were, would he not have cited it? He would not have only cited it, he would have made a major meal of it. However, because this information is nowhere to be found in his book (you cannot identify the location of something that doesn't exist) you, too, are at a total loss. This is what happens when you rely on only one source & never questioning its validity. For anything to have any credibility there have to be multiple independent sources. The only 'external' sources you have ever come close to citing are more pastings from his book, refering to creationist institutes (mostly the one he set up) which do nothing but do just the same as you in pasting passages from his book - never questioning it - no input - nothing.
The challenge was simple. It didn't require any pastings. All that was required was to fill in the blanks.
Name from the famous list.......
Name of publication reputedly cited in....
Link to exactly where this citation is made.....
It couldn't be any simpler. Find the information. You're the one making the claims that they exist. Prove it. Endless pasting from the same limited source doesn't prove anything apart from that you lack the intelligence to do any research of your own.
My challenge was to simply take any one of your famous list from Who's Who & match it to the relevant publication & item. The closest you came was to quote that of some writer who was quoting someone else on something totally unrelated. Show me anywhere where you have close to meeting these terms - and that does not mean pasting another chapter of Walt Brown's. In fact, Walt Brown's book is not even one of those listed publications. The reason you fail to do so is simple. Your only source of information is his book - your Bible. Because he is a charlatan who chooses to make unfounded claims without substantiating any of them he gives a list of impressive names and a list of impressive publications in an attempt to imply that there is some correlation between them. If there were, would he not have cited it? He would not have only cited it, he would have made a major meal of it. However, because this information is nowhere to be found in his book (you cannot identify the location of something that doesn't exist) you, too, are at a total loss. This is what happens when you rely on only one source & never questioning its validity. For anything to have any credibility there have to be multiple independent sources. The only 'external' sources you have ever come close to citing are more pastings from his book, refering to creationist institutes (mostly the one he set up) which do nothing but do just the same as you in pasting passages from his book - never questioning it - no input - nothing.
The challenge was simple. It didn't require any pastings. All that was required was to fill in the blanks.
Name from the famous list.......
Name of publication reputedly cited in....
Link to exactly where this citation is made.....
It couldn't be any simpler. Find the information. You're the one making the claims that they exist. Prove it. Endless pasting from the same limited source doesn't prove anything apart from that you lack the intelligence to do any research of your own.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart I can agree with those. A good deal of it has been willful dreaming. Some like that kind of thinking and writing.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488457 wrote: You have not met the challenge once. I have clearly stated the terms. All you have chosen to do is to paste more rubbish that everyone else ignores because we've seen it all before - over & over again.
My challenge was to simply take any one of your famous list from Who's Who & match it to the relevant publication & item. The closest you came was to quote that of some writer who was quoting someone else on something totally unrelated. Show me anywhere where you have close to meeting these terms - and that does not mean pasting another chapter of Walt Brown's. In fact, Walt Brown's book is not even one of those listed publications. The reason you fail to do so is simple. Your only source of information is his book - your Bible. Because he is a charlatan who chooses to make unfounded claims without substantiating any of them he gives a list of impressive names and a list of impressive publications in an attempt to imply that there is some correlation between them. If there were, would he not have cited it? He would not have only cited it, he would have made a major meal of it. However, because this information is nowhere to be found in his book (you cannot identify the location of something that doesn't exist) you, too, are at a total loss. This is what happens when you rely on only one source & never questioning its validity. For anything to have any credibility there have to be multiple independent sources. The only 'external' sources you have ever come close to citing are more pastings from his book, refering to creationist institutes (mostly the one he set up) which do nothing but do just the same as you in pasting passages from his book - never questioning it - no input - nothing.
The challenge was simple. It didn't require any pastings. All that was required was to fill in the blanks.
Name from the famous list.......
Name of publication reputedly cited in....
Link to exactly where this citation is made.....
It couldn't be any simpler. Find the information. You're the one making the claims that they exist. Prove it. Endless pasting from the same limited source doesn't prove anything apart from that you lack the intelligence to do any research of your own.
I have met your challenge several times and your pretend I haven't.
My last post, "The Vanishing Case for Evolution," was not from Brown. Everything I have quoted from Brown is based on the facts of science and is confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
My challenge was to simply take any one of your famous list from Who's Who & match it to the relevant publication & item. The closest you came was to quote that of some writer who was quoting someone else on something totally unrelated. Show me anywhere where you have close to meeting these terms - and that does not mean pasting another chapter of Walt Brown's. In fact, Walt Brown's book is not even one of those listed publications. The reason you fail to do so is simple. Your only source of information is his book - your Bible. Because he is a charlatan who chooses to make unfounded claims without substantiating any of them he gives a list of impressive names and a list of impressive publications in an attempt to imply that there is some correlation between them. If there were, would he not have cited it? He would not have only cited it, he would have made a major meal of it. However, because this information is nowhere to be found in his book (you cannot identify the location of something that doesn't exist) you, too, are at a total loss. This is what happens when you rely on only one source & never questioning its validity. For anything to have any credibility there have to be multiple independent sources. The only 'external' sources you have ever come close to citing are more pastings from his book, refering to creationist institutes (mostly the one he set up) which do nothing but do just the same as you in pasting passages from his book - never questioning it - no input - nothing.
The challenge was simple. It didn't require any pastings. All that was required was to fill in the blanks.
Name from the famous list.......
Name of publication reputedly cited in....
Link to exactly where this citation is made.....
It couldn't be any simpler. Find the information. You're the one making the claims that they exist. Prove it. Endless pasting from the same limited source doesn't prove anything apart from that you lack the intelligence to do any research of your own.
I have met your challenge several times and your pretend I haven't.
My last post, "The Vanishing Case for Evolution," was not from Brown. Everything I have quoted from Brown is based on the facts of science and is confirmed by the following scientists:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
So, how many times can you re-post the same bull****?
Having all those names on a list means absolutely nothing, and we have already shown that at least some of those statements supposedly supporting Brown only do so in your evidence free interpretation of their statements taken completely out of context. I also seem to recall pointing out that not all of those names refer to actual scientists.
Having all those names on a list means absolutely nothing, and we have already shown that at least some of those statements supposedly supporting Brown only do so in your evidence free interpretation of their statements taken completely out of context. I also seem to recall pointing out that not all of those names refer to actual scientists.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488726 wrote: So, how many times can you re-post the same bull****?
Having all those names on a list means absolutely nothing, and we have already shown that at least some of those statements supposedly supporting Brown only do so in your evidence free interpretation of their statements taken completely out of context. I also seem to recall pointing out that not all of those names refer to actual scientists.
Which ones are not scientists? Show us where the quote has changed the meaning of the context.
Having all those names on a list means absolutely nothing, and we have already shown that at least some of those statements supposedly supporting Brown only do so in your evidence free interpretation of their statements taken completely out of context. I also seem to recall pointing out that not all of those names refer to actual scientists.
Which ones are not scientists? Show us where the quote has changed the meaning of the context.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488727 wrote: Which ones are not scientists? Show us where the quote has changed the meaning of the context.
[sigh]
Asked and answered, already.
I am not being paid to be your editor.
[sigh]
Asked and answered, already.
I am not being paid to be your editor.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488727 wrote: Which ones are not scientists? Show us where the quote has changed the meaning of the context.
Read & understand the challenge.
Take ANY ONE of those names.
Match that name to ANY ONE of the listed publications.
Show ANY ONE place where that name cites ANYTHING in support of Walt Brown's fantasies.
The lists you are so fond of pasting have absolutely NO relationship to each other. Constantly pasting them without any cross referencing between them has NO meaning. You seem to think that by repeatedly pasting your little lists you are somehow meeting my challenge when you have NOT met any of the terms. All you do is to insist on doing is pasting the same old lists.
You've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of the word "Context". It seems that now you have no understanding of the word "Relevance" either. As I have said from the start you are unable to meet the challenge because your only information source is the "Gospel According To Walt Brown". It makes no mention of the individually referred citations, therefore you don't have any idea of them either but because you blindly accept everything he says at face value without double checking things for yourself you don't have a clue & prefer to constantly make a fool of yourself when you continue to demonstrate this blind ignorance.
If I were to follow you method of argument, all I would need to do would be to paste a copy of a list of names, such as Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Eric Laithwaite alongside a list of books such as War & Peace, Noddy in Toyland, Grimm's Fairy Tales & say "There's your proof". Proof of what? Where in any of those books is there to be found any mention of any of the names? Which names? Saying what? You (Walt Brown) have provided the names. You (Walt Brown) have provided the books. Now fill in the gaps....
Who?
Saying what?
In which publication?
Where?
Despite repeated challenges for you to answer that simple question you have repeatedly responded with the same meaningless pastings. Now explain it. Expand on it. Demonstrate what it means. It's your baby. You seem to be the expert on it. Enlighten us. My belief is that you can't because (a) you don't know & (b) there's no way you could know because there is no connection in the first place.
Read & understand the challenge.
Take ANY ONE of those names.
Match that name to ANY ONE of the listed publications.
Show ANY ONE place where that name cites ANYTHING in support of Walt Brown's fantasies.
The lists you are so fond of pasting have absolutely NO relationship to each other. Constantly pasting them without any cross referencing between them has NO meaning. You seem to think that by repeatedly pasting your little lists you are somehow meeting my challenge when you have NOT met any of the terms. All you do is to insist on doing is pasting the same old lists.
You've already demonstrated your lack of understanding of the word "Context". It seems that now you have no understanding of the word "Relevance" either. As I have said from the start you are unable to meet the challenge because your only information source is the "Gospel According To Walt Brown". It makes no mention of the individually referred citations, therefore you don't have any idea of them either but because you blindly accept everything he says at face value without double checking things for yourself you don't have a clue & prefer to constantly make a fool of yourself when you continue to demonstrate this blind ignorance.
If I were to follow you method of argument, all I would need to do would be to paste a copy of a list of names, such as Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Eric Laithwaite alongside a list of books such as War & Peace, Noddy in Toyland, Grimm's Fairy Tales & say "There's your proof". Proof of what? Where in any of those books is there to be found any mention of any of the names? Which names? Saying what? You (Walt Brown) have provided the names. You (Walt Brown) have provided the books. Now fill in the gaps....
Who?
Saying what?
In which publication?
Where?
Despite repeated challenges for you to answer that simple question you have repeatedly responded with the same meaningless pastings. Now explain it. Expand on it. Demonstrate what it means. It's your baby. You seem to be the expert on it. Enlighten us. My belief is that you can't because (a) you don't know & (b) there's no way you could know because there is no connection in the first place.
Science Disproves Evolution
Light from the closest spiral galaxy takes 2.5 million years to reach Earth.
We would not be able to see it if that amount of time had not already passed.
Which by the way, is how long we will need to wait, for Pahu to meet any challenge.
We would not be able to see it if that amount of time had not already passed.
Which by the way, is how long we will need to wait, for Pahu to meet any challenge.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 3
¨Some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart. (e).
Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space.
Figure*200: Globular Cluster. Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000–1,000,000 stars. This globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away.
Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form subsequent stars in the cluster (f). In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence at about the same time.¨¨e. “In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen. Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle, Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.
“For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out. Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit, Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356.
“The bizarre question of the hour is what the young stars are doing there at all. Clouds of gas need a calm and cold setting to collapse into a ball dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Yet gravitational tidal forces—from the black hole and from stars in the galaxy’s nucleus—make the galactic center the antithesis of such a [stellar] nursery. Ibid., p. 1357.
“Ironically, stars such as these have no business being so close to a black hole...there is no plausible explanation of how and why the hot, young stars near the centre of the Milky Way and Andromeda got there. Fulvio Melia, “Odd Company, Nature, Vol. 437, 20 October 2005, p. 1105.
f. “Little is known about the origins of globular clusters, which contain hundreds of thousands of stars in a volume only a few light years across. Radiation pressure and winds from luminous young stars should disperse the star-forming gas and disrupt the formation of the cluster. J. L. Turner et al., “An Extragalactic Supernebula, Nature, Vol. 423, 5 June 2003, p. 621.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Dishonest posting but not unexpected.
Incapable, clearly of understanding and meeting an obligation to a challenge. Won't or can't ?
Incapable, clearly of understanding and meeting an obligation to a challenge. Won't or can't ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488793 wrote:
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 3
¨Some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart. (e).
Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space.
Figure�*200: Globular Cluster. Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000–1,000,000 stars. This globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away.
Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form subsequent stars in the cluster (f). In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence at about the same time.¨¨e. “In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen. Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle, Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.
“For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out. Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit, Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356.
“The bizarre question of the hour is what the young stars are doing there at all. Clouds of gas need a calm and cold setting to collapse into a ball dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Yet gravitational tidal forces—from the black hole and from stars in the galaxy’s nucleus—make the galactic center the antithesis of such a [stellar] nursery. Ibid., p. 1357.
“Ironically, stars such as these have no business being so close to a black hole...there is no plausible explanation of how and why the hot, young stars near the centre of the Milky Way and Andromeda got there. Fulvio Melia, “Odd Company, Nature, Vol. 437, 20 October 2005, p. 1105.
f. “Little is known about the origins of globular clusters, which contain hundreds of thousands of stars in a volume only a few light years across. Radiation pressure and winds from luminous young stars should disperse the star-forming gas and disrupt the formation of the cluster. J. L. Turner et al., “An Extragalactic Supernebula, Nature, Vol. 423, 5 June 2003, p. 621.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
EVERY word in this post is pure speculation with no evidence offered to support the statements being made.
I believe that is what you like to refer to as "Evidence-free speculation"
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? 3
¨Some stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star. Instead, the black hole’s massive gravity would pull such clouds (supposedly evolving stars) apart. (e).
Nor could stars have evolved in globular clusters, where up to a million stars occupy a relatively small volume of space.
Figure�*200: Globular Cluster. Globular clusters are tight, spherical concentrations of 10,000–1,000,000 stars. This globular cluster, called M13, is about 22,000 light-years away.
Wind and radiation pressure from the first star in the cluster to evolve would have blown away most of the gas needed to form subsequent stars in the cluster (f). In other words, if stars evolved, we should not see globular clusters, yet our galaxy has about 200 globular clusters. To pack so many stars that tightly together requires that they all came into existence at about the same time.¨¨e. “In fact, given our current understanding of how stars form and the properties of the galactic center, it’s [stellar evolution near the galactic center is] not allowed to happen. Andrea M. Gaze, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mystery in the Middle, Science News, Vol. 163, 21 June 2003, p. 394.
“For example, no one can explain how the stars—which are 15 times heftier than our sun—got there [near the center of our galaxy]. According to most astronomical models, they are too big to have formed in the chaos of the galactic center but appear to be too young to have moved there from farther out. Robert Irion, “The Milky Way’s Dark, Starving Pit, Science, Vol. 300, 30 May 2003, p. 1356.
“The bizarre question of the hour is what the young stars are doing there at all. Clouds of gas need a calm and cold setting to collapse into a ball dense enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Yet gravitational tidal forces—from the black hole and from stars in the galaxy’s nucleus—make the galactic center the antithesis of such a [stellar] nursery. Ibid., p. 1357.
“Ironically, stars such as these have no business being so close to a black hole...there is no plausible explanation of how and why the hot, young stars near the centre of the Milky Way and Andromeda got there. Fulvio Melia, “Odd Company, Nature, Vol. 437, 20 October 2005, p. 1105.
f. “Little is known about the origins of globular clusters, which contain hundreds of thousands of stars in a volume only a few light years across. Radiation pressure and winds from luminous young stars should disperse the star-forming gas and disrupt the formation of the cluster. J. L. Turner et al., “An Extragalactic Supernebula, Nature, Vol. 423, 5 June 2003, p. 621.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
EVERY word in this post is pure speculation with no evidence offered to support the statements being made.
I believe that is what you like to refer to as "Evidence-free speculation"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
As Snowfire points out, a Light Year is the distance light travels over the duration of 1 year.
Brown states that his little picture is of stars 22,000 light years away. Therefore, what we are seeing of them is how they looked 22,000 years ago. But wait. That can't be. According to the Creationist tenet they didn't exist then. The heavens & the earth were only supposedly created about 7,000 years ago.
Anyway, don't think that we haven't noticed your little attempt to get away from the challenge. We're still waiting for your response - although as far as I am concerned you have already conceded defeat because I clearly stated that condition in my challenge - that if you couldn't come up with a definitive response then you were admitting defeat by default. You have failed to make that response, so you have effectively admitted defeat & affirmed Brown to be a charlatan & a liar.
Brown states that his little picture is of stars 22,000 light years away. Therefore, what we are seeing of them is how they looked 22,000 years ago. But wait. That can't be. According to the Creationist tenet they didn't exist then. The heavens & the earth were only supposedly created about 7,000 years ago.
Anyway, don't think that we haven't noticed your little attempt to get away from the challenge. We're still waiting for your response - although as far as I am concerned you have already conceded defeat because I clearly stated that condition in my challenge - that if you couldn't come up with a definitive response then you were admitting defeat by default. You have failed to make that response, so you have effectively admitted defeat & affirmed Brown to be a charlatan & a liar.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488827 wrote: As Snowfire points out, a Light Year is the distance light travels over the duration of 1 year.
Brown states that his little picture is of stars 22,000 light years away. Therefore, what we are seeing of them is how they looked 22,000 years ago. But wait. That can't be. According to the Creationist tenet they didn't exist then. The heavens & the earth were only supposedly created about 7,000 years ago.
Anyway, don't think that we haven't noticed your little attempt to get away from the challenge. We're still waiting for your response - although as far as I am concerned you have already conceded defeat because I clearly stated that condition in my challenge - that if you couldn't come up with a definitive response then you were admitting defeat by default. You have failed to make that response, so you have effectively admitted defeat & affirmed Brown to be a charlatan & a liar.
I have met your challenge and you have chosen to ignore it. I have a challenge for you: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural. Explain how a natural cause could account for the universe appearing from nothing.
Here is an explanation for the speed of light:
Universe Stretched
Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. The scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.
At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out or “stretches out the heavens. [See Table 21.] For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.
Table 21. Bible References to Stretching Out of the Heavens
Job 9:8 “[God] stretches out the heavens
Ps 104:2 “stretching out heaven like a tent curtain1
Is 40:22 “He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent1
Is 42:5 “... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out
Is 44:24 “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself
Is 45:12 “It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands
Is 48:13 “Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.
Is 51:13 “the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth
Jer 10:12 “He has stretched out the heavens
Jer 51:15 “He stretched out the heavens
Zech 12:1 “the Lord who stretches out the heavens
The context of each of the above verses deals with creation. Although past and present tenses (stretched and stretches) are expressed in these English translations, Hebrew verbs do not generally convey past, present, or future. Translators must rely on context and other clues to determine verb tense.
Even if we knew the intended Hebrew tense, is the stretching from God’s perspective or man’s? The creation was completed in six days (Exodus 20:11), suggesting that in God’s time the heavens were stretched out during the creation week, perhaps on Day 4. However, in our time, some redshifted light from extreme distances—a consequence of this past stretching—is reaching us now.
The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.
The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and differences with the big bang theory. Both the big bang and stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the universe, soon after time began, but before all the laws of physics were in place. As one big bang authority stated:
“In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.
The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point. Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10-34 second) or less, as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.
The Evidence
Accelerating Expansion.
The redshift of distant starlight suggests an expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. Stretching, completed during the creation week, could have produced the accelerated expansion which is shown by the light that has finally reached earth from the edge of the visible universe.
Star Formation.
Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was once thousands of times more compact. Apparently, stars were formed before or as the heavens were stretched out.
Intergalactic Medium (IGM).
Outer space is nearly a perfect vacuum. The IGM (the vast space between galaxies) contains about 10–100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, almost every hydrogen atom in the IGM, out to the farthest galaxies the best telescopes can see (13 billion light-years away), has been ionized—has lost its electron.
According to the big bang theory, for the first 400,000 years after the big bang, the expanding universe was so hot that all matter was ionized. Only after the universe had expanded (and cooled) enough could protons acquire an electron and become neutral hydrogen. Then, after matter in the universe was no longer ionized, stars and galaxies, according to the theory, began evolving. Had the hydrogen remained ionized, the mutual repulsion of the positive hydrogen ions would have prevented hydrogen from coming together to form stars. (Note: other reasons why stars and galaxies could not have evolved are given on pages 31–34.)
This presents a major problem. What reionized the hydrogen that today pervades the IGM? No explanation has been found. Most big-bang theorists had guessed that the radiation from the earliest stars and galaxies—after the universe had already expanded for hundreds of millions of years—was powerful enough to reionize the IGM. This now appears to not be the case.
According to the stretching explanation, when the universe was created, it was extremely compact, so the intense light of DAY 1 and/or the light of stars and galaxies (created on DAY 4) ionized the surrounding gases. Then, the heavens were stretched out. Therefore, hydrogen in the IGM has always been ionized, just as we see it today.
Figure 214: WMAP. In 2001, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), a NASA spacecraft, began measuring the extremely uniform temperatures of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation from deep space. The hot spots, shown in yellow and orange, are only 1 part in 100,000 hotter than the dark blue spots. Two interpretations are possible:
1. Big Bang Interpretation: You are seeing “quantum fluctuations in the early universe 380,000 years after the big bang, as tiny bundles of energy pop in and out of the vacuum of space. Those bundles of energy were amplified by inflation enabling them to begin forming stars, galaxies, and black holes hundreds of millions of years later. [“Quantum fluctuations, while sounding impressive, have little experimental support.
2. Stretching Interpretation: We are seeing early stars and galaxies in a very compact region as they were during the creation week.
PREDICTION 49: Billion-dollar telescopes, now being built, will be able to see farther back in time—much closer to the beginning of the universe. They will not find the IGM being ionized, because it has been ionized since the creation.
Black Holes.
Black holes come in two varieties: massive black holes (MBHs) and stellar black holes (SBHs). MBHs are millions to a few billion times more massive that the sun. They lie at the center of every large nearby galaxy—and perhaps every galaxy. SBHs have masses that are only a few tens times greater than the sun; probably millions of SBHs are scattered throughout our Milky Way Galaxy. In both types of black holes, mass is so concentrated that nothing within a specific distance from a black hole (called the event horizon) should escape their gravity—not even light.
Astronomers admit that galaxies and black holes must have existed very soon after the universe began, but the big bang theory says that 300,000 years after the big bang (before stars formed) all matter was spread out uniformly. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies and black holes, even over the supposed age of the universe. However, they could easily have formed or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, if the universe was much more compact and the heavens were stretched out before a complete collapse into one huge black hole.
Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light. These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies. Stars sometimes expel jets, so this paradox could be resolved if space was stretched out after stellar jets and black holes began forming.
Quasars.
Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time) that they are seen still pulling in large amounts of nearby matter. The gravitational potential energy of all that falling matter is converted to bright radiation. The combination—a MBH with bright radiation from infalling matter—is called a quasar (quasi-stellar radio source, QUASi-stellAR). Light we are now seeing from quasars was emitted soon after time began, before most of the matter surrounding those distant MBHs was pulled into them.
One quasar has been found that has two billion times the mass of the Sun, and yet is so far from earth that big-bang theorists say it must have formed (by some unknown mechanism) very soon after the universe began. (This contradicts their view that the universe began with a superhot expansion, then 100,000,000 years later, stars began forming.) “It is safe to say that the existence of this quasar will be giving some theorists sleepless nights. However, these massive objects could have formed in a very compact universe if the stretching occurred several days after the universe began, but after some gravitational clumping began.
Likewise, much of the expansion of supernova remnants over great distances may be due to the stretching, rather than the passage of millions of years.
Galaxies and Their Black Holes.
The masses of massive black holes are positively correlated with the size of each of their galaxies. (The larger the galaxy, the larger its black hole.) According to the standard explanations for galaxy formation, this should not be, because black holes are so small in volume compared to galaxies. If a massive black hole formed first, it would not be able to form a large galaxy, because black holes cannot affect something as large as a galaxy. Nor would a large galaxy necessarily produce a large black hole. Instead, “the correlation means that the black hole and galaxy had to form together, something standard astronomy is unable to explain.
But this is precisely what should happen based on the stretching explanation. Before the universe was stretched out, some regions contained more mass than other regions. The denser concentrations collapsed rapidly, forming massive black holes, but the stretching that quickly followed prevented all that concentration of mass from ending up in the black hole. Instead, a large galaxy was formed around the massive black hole. Less-dense concentrations formed less-massive black holes and the stretching that quickly followed produced a smaller galaxy.
Central Stars.
About forty stars orbit within a few dozen light-hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has the mass of 4,300,000 suns, because the black hole’s gravity would have prevented gas from collapsing to become a star. However, those stars could have formed in a much denser environment, before space was stretched out during the creation week.
Some astronomers say that these stars evolved far from the black hole and then migrated great distances toward the black hole. Such a migration, which seemingly violates the laws of physics, must have been fast because the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms. Also, matter (or stars) migrating toward black holes must radiate vast amounts of energy as happens with quasars, but that energy is not observed in any wavelength for these central stars.
Spiral Galaxies.
If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap than more distant spiral galaxies. However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
Dwarf Galaxies.
Dwarf galaxies are sometimes embedded in a smoothly rotating disk of hydrogen gas that is much larger than the galaxy itself. The mass (hidden or otherwise) of each dwarf galaxy is insufficient to pull the gas into its disk shape, but if this matter was once highly concentrated and then the space it occupied was recently stretched out, all observed characteristics would be explained.
Figure 215: Dwarf Galaxy. An enormous hydrogen disk (blue) surrounds the dwarf galaxy UGC 5288 (bright white). This isolated galaxy, 16 million light-years from Earth, contains about 100,000 stars and is 1/25 the diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy, which has at least 100,000,000,000 stars. The dwarf’s mass is about 30 times too small to gravitationally hold onto the most distant hydrogen gas, so gravity could not have pulled the distant hydrogen gas into its disk. Because the gas is too evenly distributed and rotates so smoothly, it was not expelled from the galaxy or pulled out by a close encounter with another galaxy.
Hydrogen gas would have assumed this shape if space was once more compact and later was stretched out. Before the stretching, gravitational forces would have been much more powerful, thereby producing this smooth rotational pattern. This would have occurred recently, because the gaseous disk has not dispersed into the vacuum of space. (The galaxy is seen in visible light; the hydrogen disk is seen by a fleet of 27 radio telescopes.)
Heavy Elements in Stars.
According to the big bang theory, there are three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy elements. The first generation should contain only hydrogen and helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should still be visible, not one has ever been found.
According to the stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical elements. The most distant stars, galaxies, and quasars that can be analyzed contain some of these heavier chemical elements.
Stellar Velocities.
Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However, if those stars were nearer the centers of their galaxies only thousands of years ago—before the heavens were stretched out—they would have had those higher speeds then, and would retain them after the heavens were stretched out. Appeals to so-called dark matter, which has not been directly measured or detected, would not be needed (or imagined) to explain those velocities.)
Speeding Galaxies.
A similar observation can be made about tight clusters of galaxies. Galaxies in clusters are traveling much faster than they should, based on their distances from their clusters’ centers of mass.
Distant Galaxies.
Massive galaxies and galaxy clusters are now found at such great distances that they must have formed soon after the universe began. The big bang theory cannot explain how such distant galaxy concentrations could have formed so quickly that their light could travel for almost 13-billion years to reach planet Earth.
The stretching explanation says that galaxies and galaxy clusters began before the heavens were stretched out, when all matter was relatively confined. Stretching produced most of the great distances separating those galaxies from Earth.
Strings of Galaxies.
Obviously, gravity would not pull matter into long strings of hundreds or thousands of galaxies—even if the universe were unbelievably old. Instead, gravity, if acting over enormous time and distances, would pull matter into more spherical globs. Yet, long, massive filaments of galaxies have been discovered.
These strings of galaxies can be understood if galaxies were formed when all matter in the universe was initially confined to a much smaller volume. (In that small space, stars and galaxies formed either by the direct acts of a Creator or by the powerful gravitational forces resulting from so much extremely confined mass.) Then, the heavens were rapidly stretched out. Just as one might pull taffy into long strings, the stretched out heavens might contain long, massive strings of thousands of galaxies. A surprising number appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars, as prominent astronomers have noted.
Colliding Galaxies.
Some galaxies contain two distinct rotating systems, as if a galaxy rotating one way collided with another rotating the opposite way. Today, based on the vast distances between galaxies and their relatively slow speeds, such mergers should rarely happen—but many have happened.
Does this mean that the universe must be billions of years old? No. Before the heavens were stretched out, galaxies would have been closer to each other, resulting in much greater speeds and frequent collisions.
If some galaxies merged over billions of years, why haven’t the different rotations within a merged galaxy homogenized by now? Clearly, those mergings did not happen billions of years ago.
Helium-2 Nebulas.
Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot enough to do so, but compressed conditions before the heavens were stretched out would do this.
Dark “Science.
The big bang theory must invoke unscientific concepts, such as “dark matter and “dark energy, to try to explain the “stretched out heavens. What is dark matter and dark energy? Even believers in those ideas don’t know, and some admit that those phrases are “expressions of ignorance [by those who accept the big bang theory].
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
The CMB is often given as evidence for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for the sudden creation of matter within a much smaller universe that was later stretched out. [For details, see pages 431–433]
Figure 216: Stretching Out Light. Unimaginable amounts of energy were required to stretch out the heavens—in effect, to lift massive gravitational bodies and move them billions of light years away from other gravitational bodies. The same energy source that stretched out space (represented above by the blue springs) also stretched out—redshifted—light (represented by the yellow arrows). The law of conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. According to the big bang theory, the universe is an isolated system, so that energy could not have come from within the universe, as the big bang theory claims. Instead, it came from outside the universe. Thus, we can see distant stars and galaxies in a young universe.
“The horizon problem has perplexed advocates of the big bang theory for decades, because they see no way that opposite sides of the universe, which are so far apart, could ever have interacted with each other—even at the speed of light. Nevertheless they do have the same temperature and other physical properties. Stretching explains this, because all matter was initially confined to a volume only a few light days in diameter. Therefore, temperatures throughout that small volume reached equilibrium before the stretching began, probably by DAY 4 of the creation week.
Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a small universe, space expanding, and a brief period when all the laws of physics did not operate. The big bang theory says that space expanded for a fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching explanation says that in the days after the creation of time and all matter, a much smaller universe than we have today was rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space. Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of expansion, the stretching interpretation best fits the observable evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens. Another verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence
Brown states that his little picture is of stars 22,000 light years away. Therefore, what we are seeing of them is how they looked 22,000 years ago. But wait. That can't be. According to the Creationist tenet they didn't exist then. The heavens & the earth were only supposedly created about 7,000 years ago.
Anyway, don't think that we haven't noticed your little attempt to get away from the challenge. We're still waiting for your response - although as far as I am concerned you have already conceded defeat because I clearly stated that condition in my challenge - that if you couldn't come up with a definitive response then you were admitting defeat by default. You have failed to make that response, so you have effectively admitted defeat & affirmed Brown to be a charlatan & a liar.
I have met your challenge and you have chosen to ignore it. I have a challenge for you: Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural. Explain how a natural cause could account for the universe appearing from nothing.
Here is an explanation for the speed of light:
Universe Stretched
Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. The scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.
At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out or “stretches out the heavens. [See Table 21.] For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.
Table 21. Bible References to Stretching Out of the Heavens
Job 9:8 “[God] stretches out the heavens
Ps 104:2 “stretching out heaven like a tent curtain1
Is 40:22 “He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent1
Is 42:5 “... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out
Is 44:24 “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself
Is 45:12 “It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands
Is 48:13 “Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.
Is 51:13 “the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth
Jer 10:12 “He has stretched out the heavens
Jer 51:15 “He stretched out the heavens
Zech 12:1 “the Lord who stretches out the heavens
The context of each of the above verses deals with creation. Although past and present tenses (stretched and stretches) are expressed in these English translations, Hebrew verbs do not generally convey past, present, or future. Translators must rely on context and other clues to determine verb tense.
Even if we knew the intended Hebrew tense, is the stretching from God’s perspective or man’s? The creation was completed in six days (Exodus 20:11), suggesting that in God’s time the heavens were stretched out during the creation week, perhaps on Day 4. However, in our time, some redshifted light from extreme distances—a consequence of this past stretching—is reaching us now.
The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.
The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and differences with the big bang theory. Both the big bang and stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the universe, soon after time began, but before all the laws of physics were in place. As one big bang authority stated:
“In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.
The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point. Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10-34 second) or less, as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.
The Evidence
Accelerating Expansion.
The redshift of distant starlight suggests an expansion. However, a big bang should produce only a decelerating expansion, not the accelerating expansion observed. Stretching, completed during the creation week, could have produced the accelerated expansion which is shown by the light that has finally reached earth from the edge of the visible universe.
Star Formation.
Astronomers recognize that the densest gas cloud seen in the universe today could not form stars by any known means, including gravitational collapse, unless that gas was once thousands of times more compact. Apparently, stars were formed before or as the heavens were stretched out.
Intergalactic Medium (IGM).
Outer space is nearly a perfect vacuum. The IGM (the vast space between galaxies) contains about 10–100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. However, almost every hydrogen atom in the IGM, out to the farthest galaxies the best telescopes can see (13 billion light-years away), has been ionized—has lost its electron.
According to the big bang theory, for the first 400,000 years after the big bang, the expanding universe was so hot that all matter was ionized. Only after the universe had expanded (and cooled) enough could protons acquire an electron and become neutral hydrogen. Then, after matter in the universe was no longer ionized, stars and galaxies, according to the theory, began evolving. Had the hydrogen remained ionized, the mutual repulsion of the positive hydrogen ions would have prevented hydrogen from coming together to form stars. (Note: other reasons why stars and galaxies could not have evolved are given on pages 31–34.)
This presents a major problem. What reionized the hydrogen that today pervades the IGM? No explanation has been found. Most big-bang theorists had guessed that the radiation from the earliest stars and galaxies—after the universe had already expanded for hundreds of millions of years—was powerful enough to reionize the IGM. This now appears to not be the case.
According to the stretching explanation, when the universe was created, it was extremely compact, so the intense light of DAY 1 and/or the light of stars and galaxies (created on DAY 4) ionized the surrounding gases. Then, the heavens were stretched out. Therefore, hydrogen in the IGM has always been ionized, just as we see it today.
Figure 214: WMAP. In 2001, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), a NASA spacecraft, began measuring the extremely uniform temperatures of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation from deep space. The hot spots, shown in yellow and orange, are only 1 part in 100,000 hotter than the dark blue spots. Two interpretations are possible:
1. Big Bang Interpretation: You are seeing “quantum fluctuations in the early universe 380,000 years after the big bang, as tiny bundles of energy pop in and out of the vacuum of space. Those bundles of energy were amplified by inflation enabling them to begin forming stars, galaxies, and black holes hundreds of millions of years later. [“Quantum fluctuations, while sounding impressive, have little experimental support.
2. Stretching Interpretation: We are seeing early stars and galaxies in a very compact region as they were during the creation week.
PREDICTION 49: Billion-dollar telescopes, now being built, will be able to see farther back in time—much closer to the beginning of the universe. They will not find the IGM being ionized, because it has been ionized since the creation.
Black Holes.
Black holes come in two varieties: massive black holes (MBHs) and stellar black holes (SBHs). MBHs are millions to a few billion times more massive that the sun. They lie at the center of every large nearby galaxy—and perhaps every galaxy. SBHs have masses that are only a few tens times greater than the sun; probably millions of SBHs are scattered throughout our Milky Way Galaxy. In both types of black holes, mass is so concentrated that nothing within a specific distance from a black hole (called the event horizon) should escape their gravity—not even light.
Astronomers admit that galaxies and black holes must have existed very soon after the universe began, but the big bang theory says that 300,000 years after the big bang (before stars formed) all matter was spread out uniformly. That uniformity would prevent gravity from forming galaxies and black holes, even over the supposed age of the universe. However, they could easily have formed or existed soon after the creation of matter and the universe, if the universe was much more compact and the heavens were stretched out before a complete collapse into one huge black hole.
Even though nothing should escape black holes, some are expelling powerful jets at “up to 99.98 percent of the speed of light. These amazing outflows traverse distances larger than galaxies. Stars sometimes expel jets, so this paradox could be resolved if space was stretched out after stellar jets and black holes began forming.
Quasars.
Quasars are the most luminous stable objects in the universe. Most black holes have already pulled in almost all the dust within their vicinity. However, some black holes are at such extreme distances from us (and therefore seen as they were far back in time) that they are seen still pulling in large amounts of nearby matter. The gravitational potential energy of all that falling matter is converted to bright radiation. The combination—a MBH with bright radiation from infalling matter—is called a quasar (quasi-stellar radio source, QUASi-stellAR). Light we are now seeing from quasars was emitted soon after time began, before most of the matter surrounding those distant MBHs was pulled into them.
One quasar has been found that has two billion times the mass of the Sun, and yet is so far from earth that big-bang theorists say it must have formed (by some unknown mechanism) very soon after the universe began. (This contradicts their view that the universe began with a superhot expansion, then 100,000,000 years later, stars began forming.) “It is safe to say that the existence of this quasar will be giving some theorists sleepless nights. However, these massive objects could have formed in a very compact universe if the stretching occurred several days after the universe began, but after some gravitational clumping began.
Likewise, much of the expansion of supernova remnants over great distances may be due to the stretching, rather than the passage of millions of years.
Galaxies and Their Black Holes.
The masses of massive black holes are positively correlated with the size of each of their galaxies. (The larger the galaxy, the larger its black hole.) According to the standard explanations for galaxy formation, this should not be, because black holes are so small in volume compared to galaxies. If a massive black hole formed first, it would not be able to form a large galaxy, because black holes cannot affect something as large as a galaxy. Nor would a large galaxy necessarily produce a large black hole. Instead, “the correlation means that the black hole and galaxy had to form together, something standard astronomy is unable to explain.
But this is precisely what should happen based on the stretching explanation. Before the universe was stretched out, some regions contained more mass than other regions. The denser concentrations collapsed rapidly, forming massive black holes, but the stretching that quickly followed prevented all that concentration of mass from ending up in the black hole. Instead, a large galaxy was formed around the massive black hole. Less-dense concentrations formed less-massive black holes and the stretching that quickly followed produced a smaller galaxy.
Central Stars.
About forty stars orbit within a few dozen light-hours of the black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. Those stars could never have evolved that close to a black hole, which has the mass of 4,300,000 suns, because the black hole’s gravity would have prevented gas from collapsing to become a star. However, those stars could have formed in a much denser environment, before space was stretched out during the creation week.
Some astronomers say that these stars evolved far from the black hole and then migrated great distances toward the black hole. Such a migration, which seemingly violates the laws of physics, must have been fast because the stars are so massive that their lifetimes are very short in astronomical terms. Also, matter (or stars) migrating toward black holes must radiate vast amounts of energy as happens with quasars, but that energy is not observed in any wavelength for these central stars.
Spiral Galaxies.
If spiral galaxies formed billions of years ago, their arms should be wrapped more tightly around their centers than they are. Also, nearer galaxies should show much more “wrap than more distant spiral galaxies. However, if space was recently stretched out, spiral galaxies could appear as they do.
Dwarf Galaxies.
Dwarf galaxies are sometimes embedded in a smoothly rotating disk of hydrogen gas that is much larger than the galaxy itself. The mass (hidden or otherwise) of each dwarf galaxy is insufficient to pull the gas into its disk shape, but if this matter was once highly concentrated and then the space it occupied was recently stretched out, all observed characteristics would be explained.
Figure 215: Dwarf Galaxy. An enormous hydrogen disk (blue) surrounds the dwarf galaxy UGC 5288 (bright white). This isolated galaxy, 16 million light-years from Earth, contains about 100,000 stars and is 1/25 the diameter of our Milky Way Galaxy, which has at least 100,000,000,000 stars. The dwarf’s mass is about 30 times too small to gravitationally hold onto the most distant hydrogen gas, so gravity could not have pulled the distant hydrogen gas into its disk. Because the gas is too evenly distributed and rotates so smoothly, it was not expelled from the galaxy or pulled out by a close encounter with another galaxy.
Hydrogen gas would have assumed this shape if space was once more compact and later was stretched out. Before the stretching, gravitational forces would have been much more powerful, thereby producing this smooth rotational pattern. This would have occurred recently, because the gaseous disk has not dispersed into the vacuum of space. (The galaxy is seen in visible light; the hydrogen disk is seen by a fleet of 27 radio telescopes.)
Heavy Elements in Stars.
According to the big bang theory, there are three generations of stars, each with increasing amounts of heavy elements. The first generation should contain only hydrogen and helium. After hundreds of millions of years, second-generation stars would begin forming with heavier elements made inside first-generation stars that later exploded. Although some first-generation stars should still be visible, not one has ever been found.
According to the stretching explanation, stars have always had some heavier chemical elements. The most distant stars, galaxies, and quasars that can be analyzed contain some of these heavier chemical elements.
Stellar Velocities.
Stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies travel much faster than they should based on physical laws. However, if those stars were nearer the centers of their galaxies only thousands of years ago—before the heavens were stretched out—they would have had those higher speeds then, and would retain them after the heavens were stretched out. Appeals to so-called dark matter, which has not been directly measured or detected, would not be needed (or imagined) to explain those velocities.)
Speeding Galaxies.
A similar observation can be made about tight clusters of galaxies. Galaxies in clusters are traveling much faster than they should, based on their distances from their clusters’ centers of mass.
Distant Galaxies.
Massive galaxies and galaxy clusters are now found at such great distances that they must have formed soon after the universe began. The big bang theory cannot explain how such distant galaxy concentrations could have formed so quickly that their light could travel for almost 13-billion years to reach planet Earth.
The stretching explanation says that galaxies and galaxy clusters began before the heavens were stretched out, when all matter was relatively confined. Stretching produced most of the great distances separating those galaxies from Earth.
Strings of Galaxies.
Obviously, gravity would not pull matter into long strings of hundreds or thousands of galaxies—even if the universe were unbelievably old. Instead, gravity, if acting over enormous time and distances, would pull matter into more spherical globs. Yet, long, massive filaments of galaxies have been discovered.
These strings of galaxies can be understood if galaxies were formed when all matter in the universe was initially confined to a much smaller volume. (In that small space, stars and galaxies formed either by the direct acts of a Creator or by the powerful gravitational forces resulting from so much extremely confined mass.) Then, the heavens were rapidly stretched out. Just as one might pull taffy into long strings, the stretched out heavens might contain long, massive strings of thousands of galaxies. A surprising number appear connected or aligned with other galaxies or quasars, as prominent astronomers have noted.
Colliding Galaxies.
Some galaxies contain two distinct rotating systems, as if a galaxy rotating one way collided with another rotating the opposite way. Today, based on the vast distances between galaxies and their relatively slow speeds, such mergers should rarely happen—but many have happened.
Does this mean that the universe must be billions of years old? No. Before the heavens were stretched out, galaxies would have been closer to each other, resulting in much greater speeds and frequent collisions.
If some galaxies merged over billions of years, why haven’t the different rotations within a merged galaxy homogenized by now? Clearly, those mergings did not happen billions of years ago.
Helium-2 Nebulas.
Clouds of glowing, blue gas, called helium-2 nebulas, have been set aglow by something hot enough to strip two electrons from each helium atom. No known star—young or old—is hot enough to do so, but compressed conditions before the heavens were stretched out would do this.
Dark “Science.
The big bang theory must invoke unscientific concepts, such as “dark matter and “dark energy, to try to explain the “stretched out heavens. What is dark matter and dark energy? Even believers in those ideas don’t know, and some admit that those phrases are “expressions of ignorance [by those who accept the big bang theory].
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
The CMB is often given as evidence for the big bang theory. Actually, that radiation, when studied closely, is a strong argument against the big bang and evidence for the sudden creation of matter within a much smaller universe that was later stretched out. [For details, see pages 431–433]
Figure 216: Stretching Out Light. Unimaginable amounts of energy were required to stretch out the heavens—in effect, to lift massive gravitational bodies and move them billions of light years away from other gravitational bodies. The same energy source that stretched out space (represented above by the blue springs) also stretched out—redshifted—light (represented by the yellow arrows). The law of conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. According to the big bang theory, the universe is an isolated system, so that energy could not have come from within the universe, as the big bang theory claims. Instead, it came from outside the universe. Thus, we can see distant stars and galaxies in a young universe.
“The horizon problem has perplexed advocates of the big bang theory for decades, because they see no way that opposite sides of the universe, which are so far apart, could ever have interacted with each other—even at the speed of light. Nevertheless they do have the same temperature and other physical properties. Stretching explains this, because all matter was initially confined to a volume only a few light days in diameter. Therefore, temperatures throughout that small volume reached equilibrium before the stretching began, probably by DAY 4 of the creation week.
Summary
With both the big bang and stretching explanations, it is difficult to imagine time beginning, the sudden presence of matter and energy in a small universe, space expanding, and a brief period when all the laws of physics did not operate. The big bang theory says that space expanded for a fraction of a second from a mathematical point—trillions of billions of times faster than the speed of light today. The stretching explanation says that in the days after the creation of time and all matter, a much smaller universe than we have today was rapidly stretched out, along with the matter and light in that space. Although no scientific explanation can be given for either form of expansion, the stretching interpretation best fits the observable evidence.
We also can appreciate why at least eleven Bible passages, involving five different writers, mention the “stretched out heavens. Another verse, Psalm 19:1, takes on a new depth of meaning: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
You have done no such thing.
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1488867 wrote: You have done no such thing.
And he's completely swerved the issue of stars 22,000 LY away, yet the universe being only approximately 7,000 years old.....
According to Brown....
And he's completely swerved the issue of stars 22,000 LY away, yet the universe being only approximately 7,000 years old.....
According to Brown....
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1488860 wrote: I have met your challenge and you have chosen to ignore it.
Where? Give me the post number. If you have done so perhaps you buried it amidst a load more of your pastings which DO get ignored because you keep pasting the SAME stuff. You don't come up with anything new. How many times have you pasted the entire book by now? You should be able to RECITE the entire book by now - or don't you read any of it either? Perhaps you just paste it without reading it.
The fact remains that you have NOT met any of my conditions. All you have done, just as you have tried to do here is claim that you have met the challenge, followed by an attempt to change the subject by pasting a load more garbage.
I say again - WHERE have you supposedly met the challenge? Give me the post number. To give you a starting point, this is post #2280.
Where? Give me the post number. If you have done so perhaps you buried it amidst a load more of your pastings which DO get ignored because you keep pasting the SAME stuff. You don't come up with anything new. How many times have you pasted the entire book by now? You should be able to RECITE the entire book by now - or don't you read any of it either? Perhaps you just paste it without reading it.
The fact remains that you have NOT met any of my conditions. All you have done, just as you have tried to do here is claim that you have met the challenge, followed by an attempt to change the subject by pasting a load more garbage.
I say again - WHERE have you supposedly met the challenge? Give me the post number. To give you a starting point, this is post #2280.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488931 wrote: Where? Give me the post number. If you have done so perhaps you buried it amidst a load more of your pastings which DO get ignored because you keep pasting the SAME stuff. You don't come up with anything new. How many times have you pasted the entire book by now? You should be able to RECITE the entire book by now - or don't you read any of it either? Perhaps you just paste it without reading it.
The fact remains that you have NOT met any of my conditions. All you have done, just as you have tried to do here is claim that you have met the challenge, followed by an attempt to change the subject by pasting a load more garbage.
I say again - WHERE have you supposedly met the challenge? Give me the post number. To give you a starting point, this is post #2280.
2282, actually.
The fact remains that you have NOT met any of my conditions. All you have done, just as you have tried to do here is claim that you have met the challenge, followed by an attempt to change the subject by pasting a load more garbage.
I say again - WHERE have you supposedly met the challenge? Give me the post number. To give you a starting point, this is post #2280.
2282, actually.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488938 wrote: 2282, actually.
Apologies. I think I must have been looking at the bottom of the post from which I was quoting (which was #2279).
Incidentally - I think he may have tried to answer the question of Light Years. I didn't bother to read his reams of pasting, but from the gist of the first couple of lines, he's trying to redefine a Light Year.
Apologies. I think I must have been looking at the bottom of the post from which I was quoting (which was #2279).
Incidentally - I think he may have tried to answer the question of Light Years. I didn't bother to read his reams of pasting, but from the gist of the first couple of lines, he's trying to redefine a Light Year.
Science Disproves Evolution
Still feeding this troll. Pity!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1488943 wrote: Apologies. I think I must have been looking at the bottom of the post from which I was quoting (which was #2279).
Incidentally - I think he may have tried to answer the question of Light Years. I didn't bother to read his reams of pasting, but from the gist of the first couple of lines, he's trying to redefine a Light Year.
I take it that light years are measured differently in 'Walt Brown World'? Silly me....!
Incidentally - I think he may have tried to answer the question of Light Years. I didn't bother to read his reams of pasting, but from the gist of the first couple of lines, he's trying to redefine a Light Year.
I take it that light years are measured differently in 'Walt Brown World'? Silly me....!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488947 wrote: Still feeding this troll. Pity!
I think 'spammer' or fanatic/zealot is nearer the mark, but I understand the sentiment Ahso! Maybe we should all deprive him of the 'oxygen' of our attention....?
I think 'spammer' or fanatic/zealot is nearer the mark, but I understand the sentiment Ahso! Maybe we should all deprive him of the 'oxygen' of our attention....?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
I have the impression that the members who participate in this thread at this junction do so in order to feel like they know something. It's kind of like an overweight individual hanging out with obese individuals in order to feel thin. Or more appropriate; mildly unattractive-feeling people hanging with really ugly people in order to feel like they appear attractive.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
I have the impression that the members who participate in this thread at this junction do so in order to feel like they know something.
For myself, I would say that I make the odd comment here to challenge/refute what Pahu keeps on insisting is true, especially the assertion that the universe came into being from absolutely nothing, and was therefore created by supernatural means. As none of us were there at the time, this is rather difficult to verify, even with our 'advanced technology' and maths....
Not to mention the mega reams of utterly unproveable twaddle pasted from Walt Brown's book(s). Or all the evasions....
For myself, I would say that I make the odd comment here to challenge/refute what Pahu keeps on insisting is true, especially the assertion that the universe came into being from absolutely nothing, and was therefore created by supernatural means. As none of us were there at the time, this is rather difficult to verify, even with our 'advanced technology' and maths....
Not to mention the mega reams of utterly unproveable twaddle pasted from Walt Brown's book(s). Or all the evasions....
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
The point is that there's no chance at this point that participating is going to get you laid nor will it add one minute to your existence, so why bother. Oh, wait, then there's that aging process. Yes, masturbation is as good as it can get. Surely though, there are better things to do that to!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488963 wrote: The point is that there's no chance at this point that participating is going to get you laid nor will it add one minute to your existence, so why bother. Oh, wait, then there's that aging process. Yes, masturbation is as good as it can get. Surely though, there are better things to do that to!
What a strange (dirty?) mind you have. If you think that I've made comment on this post for ANY of the reasons you have advanced, may I recommend a psychologist? I'm sure he'd have a 'field day'!
Trolls come in many guises, don't they Ahso?
What a strange (dirty?) mind you have. If you think that I've made comment on this post for ANY of the reasons you have advanced, may I recommend a psychologist? I'm sure he'd have a 'field day'!
Trolls come in many guises, don't they Ahso?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488952 wrote: I have the impression that the members who participate in this thread at this junction do so in order to feel like they know something. It's kind of like an overweight individual hanging out with obese individuals in order to feel thin. Or more appropriate; mildly unattractive-feeling people hanging with really ugly people in order to feel like they appear attractive.
I've heard that most people tend to criticize the faults in other people that they see in themselves. You may be on to something.
I've heard that most people tend to criticize the faults in other people that they see in themselves. You may be on to something.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1488968 wrote: What a strange (dirty?) mind you have. If you think that I've made comment on this post for ANY of the reasons you have advanced, may I recommend a psychologist? I'm sure he'd have a 'field day'!
Trolls come in many guises, don't they Ahso?Do you ever get through a conversation without becoming offended?
Trolls come in many guises, don't they Ahso?Do you ever get through a conversation without becoming offended?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488970 wrote: I've heard that most people tend to criticize the faults in other people that they see in themselves. You may be on to something.More of that wisdom that comes from within? You don't see me feeding the troll.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488971 wrote: Do you ever get through a conversation without becoming offended?
I would say that your last post was offensive. If you were honest, as opposed to merely provocative, I'm sure you'd agree. Full of sexual innuendo and veiled insult. I know how you 'work' Ahso!, and you don't fool me. Maybe you should amend your site name and add le to the end?
I would say that your last post was offensive. If you were honest, as opposed to merely provocative, I'm sure you'd agree. Full of sexual innuendo and veiled insult. I know how you 'work' Ahso!, and you don't fool me. Maybe you should amend your site name and add le to the end?
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488972 wrote: More of that wisdom that comes from within? You don't see me feeding the troll.
You, sir, are the biggest troll under this bridge.
And Feeding trolls is what I do, it seems. I must be good at it.
You, sir, are the biggest troll under this bridge.
And Feeding trolls is what I do, it seems. I must be good at it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1488975 wrote: I would say that your last post was offensive. If you were honest, as opposed to merely provocative, I'm sure you'd agree. Full of sexual innuendo and veiled insult. I know how you 'work' Ahso!, and you don't fool me. Maybe you should amend your site name and add le to the end?Masturbation is offensive to you, Smaug? Ir is it wisdom you take issue with?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488976 wrote: You, sir, are the biggest troll under this bridge.
And Feeding trolls is what I do, it seems. I must be good at it.Feel better now?
And Feeding trolls is what I do, it seems. I must be good at it.Feel better now?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488978 wrote: Feel better now?
Eaten any Billy-goats recently, Ahso? Don't tell me you're on a diet!
Eaten any Billy-goats recently, Ahso? Don't tell me you're on a diet!
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Science Disproves Evolution
Smaug;1488980 wrote: Eaten any Billy-goats recently, Ahso? Don't tell me you're on a diet!I have no idea what this means.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Science Disproves Evolution
Ahso!;1488978 wrote: Feel better now?
Yes, thank you, though I'm all out of bread crumbs, sorry.
Yes, thank you, though I'm all out of bread crumbs, sorry.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1488982 wrote: Yes, thank you, though I'm all out of bread crumbs, sorry.Good, then stay TFOOTT. 
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple