Science Disproves Evolution

[FourPart]

God doesn't exist.

Know God. Know nothing.

[xfrodobagginsx]

FourPart;1525454 wrote: God doesn't exist.

Know God. Know nothing.


Incorrect.

[xfrodobagginsx]

In other news...

[xfrodobagginsx]

DOCTOR DOES ABORTION ON WRONG WOMAN

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/doctor-does ... ong-woman/

[xfrodobagginsx]

Biblical kingdom of Edom possibly discovered

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/biblical-ki ... iscovered/

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1525510 wrote: DOCTOR DOES ABORTION ON WRONG WOMAN

https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/doctor-does ... ong-woman/


The moderators do not know why this thread was marked closed and apologize for any inconvenience. It's very easy for a thread to be inadvertently closed, it's only one click on the wrong control and it has happened before.

Anyway. Doctor performs abortion on the wrong woman. I'm not sure what point was intended by the post, shall we discuss it?

Firstly, "abortion is illegal in South Korea, apart from in certain cases, such as rape or incest, or when the foetus could be life-threatening for the mother". Nobody at the hospital intended to abort anyone, it was "professional negligence resulting in injury" - all my quotes are from the Independent report.

This was an injection to the wrong woman, whose notes were confused with "another woman who needed an abortion because of a missed miscarriage where the foetus had died but had not miscarried yet". This was a procedure to remove an already dead 6-week miscarriage.

What on earth is it doing in this thread? Are we just flinging news items as attempted insults these days?

The one thing the story isn't is an anti-abortion story. Abortion on demand is illegal in South Korea and this was not an attempt to induce an abortion, it was intended as a medical procedure to fix an already existing miscarriage.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527138 wrote: The moderators do not know why this thread was marked closed and apologize for any inconvenience. It's very easy for a thread to be inadvertently closed, it's only one click on the wrong control and it has happened before.

Anyway. Doctor performs abortion on the wrong woman. I'm not sure what point was intended by the post, shall we discuss it?

Firstly, "abortion is illegal in South Korea, apart from in certain cases, such as rape or incest, or when the foetus could be life-threatening for the mother". Nobody at the hospital intended to abort anyone, it was "professional negligence resulting in injury" - all my quotes are from the Independent report.

This was an injection to the wrong woman, whose notes were confused with "another woman who needed an abortion because of a missed miscarriage where the foetus had died but had not miscarried yet". This was a procedure to remove an already dead 6-week miscarriage.

What on earth is it doing in this thread? Are we just flinging news items as attempted insults these days?

The one thing the story isn't is an anti-abortion story. Abortion on demand is illegal in South Korea and this was not an attempt to induce an abortion, it was intended as a medical procedure to fix an already existing miscarriage.


I apologize if it went a bit off topic. My point was to show the possible dangers of legalized abortion, that things like this can happen. It wasn't meant to be an insult. I will try to keep it more on topic.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527173 wrote: My point was to show the possible dangers of legalized abortion, that things like this can happen.


How does what happened have even the slightest bearing on legalized abortion? Do you disapprove of a medical procedure to expel an already dead miscarriage?

[xfrodobagginsx]

According to evolutionists, Plesiosaurs died out millions of years ago, yet one just washed up on the beach in GA.

MYSTERY SEA CREATURE WASHES UP ON GEORGIA BEACH

https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-sea-cr ... ach-850622

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527174 wrote: How does what happened have even the slightest bearing on legalized abortion?


My point was that mistakes like this could happen with legalized abortion. Perhaps it wasn't the best example.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527175 wrote: According to evolutionists, Plesiosaurs died out millions of years ago, yet one just washed up on the beach in GA.

MYSTERY SEA CREATURE WASHES UP ON GEORGIA BEACH

https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-sea-cr ... ach-850622


No it wasn't.

Action News Jax reached out to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more information on what kind of animal it could be.

Director Dan Ashe said some sea animals have a way of decomposing where they can resemble a Plesiosaur.

Typically, he said, a 30-foot basking shark can decompose in a way where it looks like it has a long neck and tiny head, resembling a prehistoric creature.

https://www.newsweek.com/mystery-sea-cr ... ach-850622




Has anyone suggested that astonishing claims should be rigorously proven?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiyo-maru_carcass was biochemically tested, for example, and shown to be a decomposed shark.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527177 wrote: No it wasn't.



Has anyone suggested that astonishing claims should be rigorously proven?


That was his opinion because most likely he is an evolutionist and is trying to come up with an explanation for it. I would agree with you that these astonishing claims should be rigorously proven. DNA analysis should be conducted on it and I bet it is not a shark. That animal from 1977 doesn't look the same as the one that washed up on the beach in GA last year. The article you selected was not pertaining to the one is GA.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527178 wrote: That was his opinion because most likely he is an evolutionist and is trying to come up with an explanation for it. I would agree with you that these astonishing claims should be rigorously proven. DNA analysis should be conducted on it and I bet it is not a shark. That animal from 1977 doesn't look the same as the one that washed up on the beach in GA last year.


Perhaps we can raise the thread once such tests have been completed and provide the missing evidence.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527179 wrote: Perhaps we can raise the thread once such tests have been completed and provide the missing evidence.


There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth and the universe is young and that Evolution is impossible.

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe

https://releasingthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/101/

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527181 wrote: There is a lot of evidence to show that the earth and the universe is young and that Evolution is impossible.


I'm fully aware that any omnipotent God could have created this universe last Tuesday, that's the nature of omnipotence. I just don't see the point of His disguising the fact.

I'm also slightly puzzled why you think the survival of plesiosaurs, if it turns out plesiosaurs are still alive and kicking, has any effect on the truth of evolution or the age of the universe. Perhaps you could explain how those questions would be affected if plesiosaurs were in fact found.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527185 wrote: I'm fully aware that any omnipotent God could have created this universe last Tuesday, that's the nature of omnipotence. I just don't see the point of His disguising the fact.

I'm also slightly puzzled why you think the survival of plesiosaurs, if it turns out plesiosaurs are still alive and kicking, has any effect on the truth of evolution or the age of the universe. Perhaps you could explain how those questions would be affected if plesiosaurs were in fact found.


I don't think that God has disguised it. I think that due to the fact that we have the evolution theory rammed down our throats all of our lives at school and everywhere we go, while creationists aren't allowed to present their side of the story, of course you are going to see things their way. It's like if you were in a court of law and only the prosecutor was allowed to present his case, they are very capable of leaving out any evidence that makes the defendant look innocent, while presenting only things that make him look guilty. By the time they are done, you are fully convinced that you have a guilty man on your hands, until the defense comes up and presents all of the evidence that was left out that show that the man is in fact, innocent. It happens all of the time in courts of law and it's what is happening with evolution. Since creationism isn't allow to be taught side by side and let the people decide, only one side is given.

Dinosaurs, including plesiosaurs were supposed to have died out 65 million years ago according to evolutionists themselves. That's long before man supposedly ever walked the earth. They need that to be true for their false theory to hold up, yet there is plenty of evidence that they actually lived with men and even as recently as Marco Polo and Alexander the Great and others, wrote about them. There are carvings and drawings of them all over the world from before men supposedly knew about them. The word Dinosaur wasn't coined until the 1800s and supposedly the first complete dinosaur was excavated at that time, therefore, according to evolutionists, man wouldn't have any idea what they looked like. Yet the evidence shows that this is not the case.

This is an Article on it from the Evolutionary point of view:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... osaur-era/

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527204 wrote: Dinosaurs, including plesiosaurs were supposed to have died out 65 million years ago according to evolutionists themselves. That's long before man supposedly ever walked the earth. They need that to be true for their false theory to hold up


Do you know, that really is completely false. Evolutionists have no opinion whatever on the question of dinosaurs having died out or not. The question of whether the dinosaur extinction happened has nothing to do with evolution, other than that birds are demonstrably descended from dinosaurs.

How can you pretend that evolutionists need that extinction to be true "for their false theory to hold up"? There's no connection, no scientist would ever claim there was a connection.

As a minor point, plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs, they were marine reptiles.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527212 wrote: Do you know, that really is completely false. Evolutionists have no opinion whatever on the question of dinosaurs having died out or not. The question of whether the dinosaur extinction happened has nothing to do with evolution, other than that birds are demonstrably descended from dinosaurs.

How can you pretend that evolutionists need that extinction to be true "for their false theory to hold up"? There's no connection, no scientist would ever claim there was a connection.

As a minor point, plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs, they were marine reptiles.


I don't think I can agree with you that it's not a dinosaur. It's a reptilian creature that died out with the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were actually reptiles, NOT birds. Did you read the Article I posted above?

Here is an exerpt from the Article above:

"Plesiosaurs thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Some evolved into the short-necked, large-headed pliosaurs, such as the enormous Predator X. They died out 66 million years ago, along with the dinosaurs."

Again, please read this Article if you have time.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... z64S6aDLfI

Also, here is what Wiki says about them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria



They need it to be true because that's the way they have painted their timeline of evolution. It's not just one extinction, it's all of the dinosaurs. It's a mass extinction.

Do you want to know what the creationists believe?

Dinosaurs are actually giant Lizards, NOT birds. Lizards never stop growing. Before the flood, men and animals lived about 10x longer than they do now because of the canopy of water above the atmosphere and the high pressure that made the earth like a giant hyperberic chamber. Anyway, if a Lizard was allowed to live 10x longer, it would grow to enormous sizes as the Dinosaurs did. That's why they were so big. However, most of the ones that didn't live 10x longer, were much smaller. If the Dinosaurs really died out 65 million years ago you wouldn't see examples of soft tissue being found in the bones like we do today because soft tissue (collagen) can't survive millions of years.

Here is an example of a mummified dinosaur which couldn't be 65 million years old:



https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ue/535782/

[spot]

As to whether plesiosaurs were dinosaurs - and yes, I did read the New Scientist article and it puzzles me that we can both read the same words and come away with such different impressions - you're aware that dinosaurs were egg-layers? And that "Plesiosaurs breathed air, and bore live young"? The reason Linnaeus started categorizing life into families and groups like "The Dinosaurs" and "The Marine Reptiles" was to bring together those species which had most in common. If you go high enough up his nested categories you'll come to "Vertebrate", for example. Plesiosaurs and Dinosaurs were both in the category of vertebrate animals. Plesiosaurs were not in the category of Dinosaurs. It's just how the words work.

What the two groups have in common is that they both lived in the same era, so their fossil bones are found in the same geological strata. You can find mammal bones in the same strata from the same era too, but that doesn't mean a mammal was a dinosaur.

You have an agenda, I'm aware of that. You want people to believe that the Bible is inerrant fact. That's a fundamental truth you appear to believe. I regard belief of any sort as a self-imposed illness of the mind, I do not understand why anyone should abandon reality in order to voluntarily live in a fictional landscape, but I do acknowledge that some people choose to do so. From where I sit you either have a delusion or you have an engrossing hobby, it is less insulting to consider you deluded. I hope you get over it eventually.

Out of interest, take a quick look at the downloadable article you get to if you google Geosciences 2019, 9, 35; doi:10.3390/geosciences9010035

It's a detailed description of an archaeological site. What I want to ask you is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from.

Do you think the researchers who wrote the paper are lying, for example. Have Mustoe, Viney and Mills made up a fictional story? If you were to go to the site would you discover that the evidence they describe does not in fact exist?

If not, if the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

If the answer is that God chose to mimic these archaeological ages in order to confuse people, down to the level of detail that paper demonstrates, what does that say about this notion of God you have in your mind?

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527235 wrote: As to whether plesiosaurs were dinosaurs - and yes, I did read the New Scientist article and it puzzles me that we can both read the same words and come away with such different impressions - you're aware that dinosaurs were egg-layers? And that "Plesiosaurs breathed air, and bore live young"? The reason Linnaeus started categorizing life into families and groups like "The Dinosaurs" and "The Marine Reptiles" was to bring together those species which had most in common. If you go high enough up his nested categories you'll come to "Vertebrate", for example. Plesiosaurs and Dinosaurs were both in the category of vertebrate animals. Plesiosaurs were not in the category of Dinosaurs. It's just how the words work.

What the two groups have in common is that they both lived in the same era, so their fossil bones are found in the same geological strata. You can find mammal bones in the same strata from the same era too, but that doesn't mean a mammal was a dinosaur.

You have an agenda, I'm aware of that. You want people to believe that the Bible is inerrant fact. That's a fundamental truth you appear to believe. I regard belief of any sort as a self-imposed illness of the mind, I do not understand why anyone should abandon reality in order to voluntarily live in a fictional landscape, but I do acknowledge that some people choose to do so. From where I sit you either have a delusion or you have an engrossing hobby, it is less insulting to consider you deluded. I hope you get over it eventually.

Out of interest, take a quick look at the downloadable article you get to if you google Geosciences 2019, 9, 35; doi:10.3390/geosciences9010035

It's a detailed description of an archaeological site. What I want to ask you is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from.

Do you think the researchers who wrote the paper are lying, for example. Have Mustoe, Viney and Mills made up a fictional story? If you were to go to the site would you discover that the evidence they describe does not in fact exist?

If not, if the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

If the answer is that God chose to mimic these archaeological ages in order to confuse people, down to the level of detail that paper demonstrates, what does that say about this notion of God you have in your mind?


Whether plesiosaurs are dinosaurs or not is really not that important. According to the Article, they died out 66 million years ago at the same time as the Dinosaurs. My point is that these things have washed up on the shore many times in history, showing that they never really went totally extinct. Also, it's the same for the Dinosaurs. African tribes in remote areas claim to have them also in miniature form near them. They have been shown pictures of them and then exclaim the African name they have for it. They will tell you that they see them all of the time.

Yes, I admit that I do have an agenda and my desire is that you and everyone else that comes here will be saved by grace through faith in Christ. You say that I am starting with an assumption and perhaps I am, however, evolutionists do the same exact thing. They start with an assumption that evolution is true and they work from there. That's why no amount of evidence that you show them that contradicts evolution will even be considered by them.

I don't think the evidence shown by Evolutionists is fake most of the time, although, there have been times when they have been busted doing it. For the most part, I believe that both Evolutionists AND Creationists look at the very same evidence, yet they both draw different conclusions from what they see. Evolutionists seem to think that only their conclusions are what matters and that anything that contradicts evolution shouldn't even be considered. I believe that evolution is a religion because it requires faith, in fact, it requires more faith than creationism. There is a LOT of evidence that is uncovered by evolutionists and creationists alike that is censored by the secular scientific community because it makes evolution look bad. They won't put it in textbooks.

I don't think God is mimicking anything. I think that the layers of earth happned during the flood when great oceans of water swept huge amounts of soil back and forth throughout the earth for that year. The result is different layers in the strata. I don't believe that the layers got there through millions of years. It has been observed happening on a much smaller scale before. A mini Grand Canyon was formed through flooding. The layers look just the same as the actual Grand Canyon.

Like him or not, Kent Hovind Proved that Dinosaurs did in fact live with men and he explains why here:

[spot]

Do you think you could also respond to my questions about the paper I pointed to?

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527268 wrote: Do you think you could also respond to my questions about the paper I pointed to?


This is what I found when I looked up the paper:

"Central Wyoming, USA, was the site of ancient Lake Gosiute during the Early Eocene. Lake Gosiute was a large body of water surrounded by subtropical forest, the lake being part of a lacustrine complex that occupied the Green River Basin. Lake level rises episodically drowned the adjacent forests, causing standing trees and fallen branches to become growth sites for algae and cyanobacteria, which encased submerged wood with thick calcareous stromatolitic coatings. The subsequent regression resulted in a desiccation of the wood, causing volume reduction, radial fractures, and localized decay. The subsequent burial of the wood in silty sediment led to a silicification of the cellular tissue. Later, chalcedony was deposited in larger spaces, as well as in the interstitial areas of the calcareous coatings. The final stage of mineralization was the precipitation of crystalline calcite in spaces that had previously remained unmineralized. The result of this multi-stage mineralization is fossil wood with striking beauty and a complex geologic origin."

I am not sure what your point is of this. I can tell you that the fossilization process doesn't really take that long. I can give examples of modern items that have been fossilized. There was even a company that would sell you a fossilized Teddy Bear for a price.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1527223 wrote: I don't think I can agree with you that it's not a dinosaur. It's a reptilian creature that died out with the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were actually reptiles, NOT birds. Did you read the Article I posted above?

Here is an exerpt from the Article above:

"Plesiosaurs thrived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous. Some evolved into the short-necked, large-headed pliosaurs, such as the enormous Predator X. They died out 66 million years ago, along with the dinosaurs."

Again, please read this Article if you have time.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... z64S6aDLfI

Also, here is what Wiki says about them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria



They need it to be true because that's the way they have painted their timeline of evolution. It's not just one extinction, it's all of the dinosaurs. It's a mass extinction.

Do you want to know what the creationists believe?

Dinosaurs are actually giant Lizards, NOT birds. Lizards never stop growing. Before the flood, men and animals lived about 10x longer than they do now because of the canopy of water above the atmosphere and the high pressure that made the earth like a giant hyperberic chamber. Anyway, if a Lizard was allowed to live 10x longer, it would grow to enormous sizes as the Dinosaurs did. That's why they were so big. However, most of the ones that didn't live 10x longer, were much smaller. If the Dinosaurs really died out 65 million years ago you wouldn't see examples of soft tissue being found in the bones like we do today because soft tissue (collagen) can't survive millions of years.

Here is an example of a mummified dinosaur which couldn't be 65 million years old:



https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ue/535782/


The fossils of various creatures that were called Dinosaurs indicate two major types of creatures.

There were some referred to as "Bird-hipped", and some "Lizard-hipped"

Oddly enough, recent evidence seemed to suggest that both Birds and Lizards may have evolved from Dinosaur-like creatures.

Imagine that.

Oh, and Kent Hovind has proved nothing of the sort.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527269 wrote: I am not sure what your point is of this. I can tell you that the fossilization process doesn't really take that long. I can give examples of modern items that have been fossilized. There was even a company that would sell you a fossilized Teddy Bear for a price.


You seem to dodge the question each time I ask it.

Here's the puzzle:

If the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

What I want to ask you, as I wrote, is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from. That PDF file was 20 pages long and packed with very reproducible data, and the same form of analysis of pristine fossil-bearing sites is regularly performed all over the world.

Anyone can go into the nearest geology department and see the evidence and repeat the analysis themselves at first hand, the research staff would be ecstatic if you were to volunteer to look, nothing is being hidden or withheld. It's not decades old stories of un-analysed marine corpses thrown back into the sea after being badly photographed.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1527270 wrote: The fossils of various creatures that were called Dinosaurs indicate two major types of creatures.

There were some referred to as "Bird-hipped", and some "Lizard-hipped"

Oddly enough, recent evidence seemed to suggest that both Birds and Lizards may have evolved from Dinosaur-like creatures.

Imagine that.

Oh, and Kent Hovind has proved nothing of the sort.


The evidence actually shows that the Dinosaurs WERE Lizards. They weren't birds. They didn't evolve. Lizards never stop growing and at that time, creatures lived 10x longer than they do now before Noah's Flood, which would explain their huge sizes.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527286 wrote: You seem to dodge the question each time I ask it.

Here's the puzzle:

If the detail is really there in the ground, do you think the researchers are mis-interpretting what is there? If the site looks as though the lake dates from 58-38 million years ago, and the fine detail is consistent throughout with those dates, and every test applied fits with that interpretation, how do you think the site came to exist?

What I want to ask you, as I wrote, is where you think the consistency and reproducibility of the detail comes from. That PDF file was 20 pages long and packed with very reproducible data, and the same form of analysis of pristine fossil-bearing sites is regularly performed all over the world.

Anyone can go into the nearest geology department and see the evidence and repeat the analysis themselves at first hand, the research staff would be ecstatic if you were to volunteer to look, nothing is being hidden or withheld. It's not decades old stories of un-analysed marine corpses thrown back into the sea after being badly photographed.


I am not dodging, I am trying to determine what the question is.



I think that they are misinterpreting it many times yes. And here are 2 reasons why I believe this:

1) I believe that they are beginning with the supposition that evolution is true and everything that they find is viewed through that lens. When confronted with evidence that grossly contradicts their theory, they won't consider that their view may be incorrect. It has become a religion for them and when they lack evidence, they come up with theories that they teach as fact. While it is true that creationists also start with a supposition, I believe that the evidence backs up their supposition, not Darwinian evolution. I do have to say that Creationists DO believe in evolution within the species, animal kinds, but not one animal kind evolving into another. Of course we see the variations within the species that the evolutionists attempt to use as examples of one creature evolving into a completely different one. These differences are within the species/animal kind. The different types of horses, cats, dogs, ect. are all examples of Lateral Adaptation/Mico Evolution within the species. What you never see are examples of one of these animal kinds transition to a completely different type of animal, such as a dog to a cat per se or a horse to a Moose.

2)The Government gives these researchers grants and funding to make discoveries. If they don't make discoveries that are seen as significant, they lose that funding. So they have to sensationalize things in a manner that makes it look like they have discovered some breakthrough in order to keep milking the cow.

With that said, you say that the site "Looks" like the lake dates to 58-38 million years ago. How did they arrive at that number? Every test applied doesn't fit that date. What happens is that they base the numbers on pre conceived dates based on which geological layer that they are found in. They date rocks with potassium argon dating and the dates are all over the place, usually in the millions of years. They pick a date in the middle of all of their chaotic readings and go with that one. The dating methods don't work. It's been shown creationists over and over, but they are dismissed and ridiculed. Rocks from Mt. St. Helen's were under 20 years old, but when submitted to the most advanced dating labs in the world in 1996, they came back between 1.5 and 3.5 Million years old. Another lab dated known rock that was only 50 years old as being around 7 million years old. And there are many other examples. The dating methods don't work.

Details that make Evolution look false and Creationism look true are generally not published or put into text books in the schools. They also refuse to allow Creation view point to be taught side by side in the schools because they want to control what people believe. I do believe that the system is Anti Christian/Anti God. That's why these evolutionary scientists won't even consider the possibility that there might be a God.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527346 wrote: When confronted with evidence that grossly contradicts their theory, they won't consider that their view may be incorrect.


This is very productive, thank you.

Could you look again at the PDF report we're discussing and quote anything which strikes you as evidence that grossly contradicts their theory but which could be interpreted to support your view instead. If you think they've refused to put all such evidence into their report in the first place, which I would consider to be unscientific conscious bias on their part, could you describe what that deliberately suppressed evidence might have looked like.

What you never see are examples of one of these animal kinds transition to a completely different type of animal, such as a dog to a cat per se or a horse to a Moose.


No dog has ever descended from a cat. Nobody has ever made such a claim. No moose ever descended from a horse.

I, personally, am quite obviously descended from a fish. Look at a succession of ultrasound scans and see the clearly visible gills of my own foetal body transform into a pair of middle ears, day by day. Every aspect of my body is demonstrably an adaptation of features from previous ancestor species. My internal ear is built from repurposed gill structures.

My own personal DNA is blatantly related to all of my ancestral species' still-living descendant species, right out as far as bananas, mushrooms and bacteria.

There is a vast tree of decoded common descendancy published and freely available for every human on the planet to explore. None of this evidence is secret or hidden or private. The evidence is reproducible, consistent and open to any interpretation anyone cares to apply to it. I have yet to see any creationist interpret this public data in support of their claims.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527357 wrote: This is very productive, thank you.

Could you look again at the PDF report we're discussing and quote anything which strikes you as evidence that grossly contradicts their theory but which could be interpreted to support your view instead. If you think they've refused to put all such evidence into their report in the first place, which I would consider to be unscientific conscious bias on their part, could you describe what that deliberately suppressed evidence might have looked like.



No dog has ever descended from a cat. Nobody has ever made such a claim. No moose ever descended from a horse.

I, personally, am quite obviously descended from a fish. Look at a succession of ultrasound scans and see the clearly visible gills of my own foetal body transform into a pair of middle ears, day by day. Every aspect of my body is demonstrably an adaptation of features from previous ancestor species. My internal ear is built from repurposed gill structures.

My own personal DNA is blatantly related to all of my ancestral species' still-living descendant species, right out as far as bananas, mushrooms and bacteria.

There is a vast tree of decoded common descendancy published and freely available for every human on the planet to explore. None of this evidence is secret or hidden or private. The evidence is reproducible, consistent and open to any interpretation anyone cares to apply to it. I have yet to see any creationist interpret this public data in support of their claims.


That might take a while. What I can say about evolution is that they will tend to take a few bones or even fragments of bones and then they will try to extrapolate a whole new common ancestor from them. Recently they just did that with the monkey that they say was transitioning to human. They actually found 6 different monkeys. Of the 6 total monkeys all they found was 2 leg bones, 1 1/2 vertebrae and a few other bones. The very small piece of tail bone that they found, which again was only 1.5 vertebrae had an ark or curvature that they say, if it continued throughout the entire spine (which they don't have) would have allowed this monkey to walk upright like a human. Every other bone that they found was 100% consistent with an ordinary monkey. So they claim that this monkey is somehow transitioning to a human. The problem is that variations happen even today. There are monkeys TODAY alive and in recent history that are KNOWN to walk upright like a human. They have no other differences with other monkeys. This monkey that they found is nothing more than just a monkey, yet they are pushing it as a transition. This type of thing happens ALL of the time.

Many times they will take a few bone fragments and extrapolate an entirely new species of animal, which is imaginary since they only have a few bones. What they will do is have an artist, make a drawing of what this imaginary new species MAY have looked like. Then they have the artist draw some half human, half ape like creature, when they have zero proof of this. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing. They claim that one animal kind evolved into another kind and that has never been shown to happen. They can give examples of evolution within the species and then they claim that it's evolving into another animal kind. The Galapagos island finches and they LOVE to reference is a great example. No one is denying that these finches evolved different types of beaks over time. What we do NOT see is these finches evolving into a completely different type of creature as evolutionists claim. They all stay finches and birds.

The reason that one animal kind, such as Canine and Feline cannot have evolved from each other per se, is precisely because in order for that to happen, there MUST be an increase in genetic DNA with the mutation. The Finches merely represent a reshuffling of the same DNA or the EXCLUSION of DNA, but there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species.

Even Richard Dawkins admitted that this has never been observed to happen. He was stumped by the question because he KNOWS that it means that Darwinian Evolution is impossible. Watch here:

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527398 wrote: Recently they just did that with the monkey that they say was transitioning to human.


The thing is, they said nothing remotely like that at all.

The article you're discussing is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1731-0 and the Abstract is free as are all the photos and measurements in the supplement.

Nothing about monkeys transitioning to human. Nothing about monkeys, come to that.

They say there have been two proposed routes for the development of walking on two legs (bipedalism) in hominins:

It has been suggested that bipedalism in hominins evolved from an ancestor that was a palmigrade quadruped (which would have moved similarly to living monkeys), or from a more suspensory quadruped (most similar to extant chimpanzees)


They are describing a third route based on measurements of ape specimens:

Here we describe the fossil ape Danuvius guggenmosi (from the Allgäu region of Bavaria) for which complete limb bones are preserved, which provides evidence of a newly identified form of positional behaviour - extended limb clambering.


They are not proposing "a whole new common ancestor", they are describing the remains of one extinct species of ape which predates both present-day apes and present-day humans. They don't claim it is an ancestor species of any present-day ape or any present-day human. They have found fossil remains of a single species, identified primarily, I think, on the basis of twenty teeth as well as the twenty-ish bones. They have described the ape species and they have claimed evidence of extended limb clambering on the basis of the complete limb bones they have measured. Finally they say that this third model "provides a model for the common ancestor of great apes and humans" - an additional third model, where previously only two had been identified. They don't claim their specimens are a common ancestor of great apes and humans. What they say is there now exists evidence of a third way by which a common ancestor could have developed bipedalism.

That is a totally different set of statements to your "monkey that they say was transitioning to human".

You write that "I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing" but that's exactly what you were not giving me, you were inventing examples that no evolutionist had ever advanced. If you actually provide an example of what an evolutionist has genuinely advanced, as opposed to cats turning into dogs or horses into moose, we can both stand on the same ground and examine what is really debatable.

You note emphatically that "there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species". I would point out that a new species can result even with no new DNA being created but your broader issue may be that you see no way in which new DNA can be created. Which of those two limbs would you like me to explore?

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527401 wrote: The thing is, they said nothing remotely like that at all.

The article you're discussing is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1731-0 and the Abstract is free as are all the photos and measurements in the supplement.

Nothing about monkeys transitioning to human. Nothing about monkeys, come to that.

They say there have been two proposed routes for the development of walking on two legs (bipedalism) in hominins:



They are describing a third route based on measurements of ape specimens:



They are not proposing "a whole new common ancestor", they are describing the remains of one extinct species of ape which predates both present-day apes and present-day humans. They don't claim it is an ancestor species of any present-day ape or any present-day human. They have found fossil remains of a single species, identified primarily, I think, on the basis of twenty teeth as well as the twenty-ish bones. They have described the ape species and they have claimed evidence of extended limb clambering on the basis of the complete limb bones they have measured. Finally they say that this third model "provides a model for the common ancestor of great apes and humans" - an additional third model, where previously only two had been identified. They don't claim their specimens are a common ancestor of great apes and humans. What they say is there now exists evidence of a third way by which a common ancestor could have developed bipedalism.

That is a totally different set of statements to your "monkey that they say was transitioning to human".

You write that "I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing" but that's exactly what you were not giving me, you were inventing examples that no evolutionist had ever advanced. If you actually provide an example of what an evolutionist has genuinely advanced, as opposed to cats turning into dogs or horses into moose, we can both stand on the same ground and examine what is really debatable.

You note emphatically that "there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species". I would point out that a new species can result even with no new DNA being created but your broader issue may be that you see no way in which new DNA can be created. Which of those two limbs would you like me to explore?


The bones are that of ape. Whether it has a longer than average limb or not or whether it walks upright, it's nothing more than an ape. It's not a transitional species between ape and any other animal. Show me a half one animal kind, half other animal kind. All you are doing is showing me an ape that has features a bit different than the average ape. It's just like there are people who can do strange things, like pop their eyeballs out, or contortionists, or some people have hair all over their body, or a woman with a beard. These people used to be used in the circus. They are still human. You can't look at them and say that they are an entirely new species. That's what's happening here with this breed of apes. They may be a bit different and out of the norm, but they are still apes. Nothing more.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527455 wrote: The bones are that of ape. Whether it has a longer than average limb or not or whether it walks upright, it's nothing more than an ape. It's not a transitional species between ape and any other animal. Show me a half one animal kind, half other animal kind. All you are doing is showing me an ape that has features a bit different than the average ape. It's just like there are people who can do strange things, like pop their eyeballs out, or contortionists, or some people have hair all over their body, or a woman with a beard. These people used to be used in the circus. They are still human. You can't look at them and say that they are an entirely new species. That's what's happening here with this breed of apes. They may be a bit different and out of the norm, but they are still apes. Nothing more.
Nothing in the research article claims anything different to what I have just quoted. You have set up a non-existent Aunt Sally [1] just to have something to criticize - you actually say nothing different to the article itself. The problem is that you see things in it which don't appear.

By all means find something real, as opposed to alleging something was said which wasn't. I'd very much like to discuss a real claim we can both look at and criticize together. Your "monkey transition" story gave neither of us anything to explore.





[1]: The term Aunt Sally is a synonym for a "straw man" fallacy, whereby an argument or idea is misrepresented so as to make it easier to refute.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527456 wrote: Nothing in the research article claims anything different to what I have just quoted. You have set up a non-existent Aunt Sally [1] just to have something to criticize - you actually say nothing different to the article itself. The problem is that you see things in it which don't appear.

By all means find something real, as opposed to alleging something was said which wasn't. I'd very much like to discuss a real claim we can both look at and criticize together. Your "monkey transition" story gave neither of us anything to explore.

[1]: The term Aunt Sally is a synonym for a "straw man" fallacy, whereby an argument or idea is misrepresented so as to make it easier to refute.


I don't see it that way, but if you do, then ok. So, what you are saying is that evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys, but from "common ancestor". Exactly what is this so called common ancestor?

Ok, so going off the report that I was given, they only found 2 leg bones and there were 6 monkeys/apes. They found 1 1/2 vertebrae of a spine and because of the angle of the spine they concluded that it had walked up right like a man, even though, they didn't have the rest of the spine to even verify it. They also found a few other bones that showed that they had different size arms as well than normal monkeys/apes. Anyway, the article that you presented doesn't give me any information on this other than a summery unless I am missing something.

I think that the straw man is very real. I think that these types of finds are intentionally exaggerated in order to present the perception that they were our ancestors. You can disagree with that, but that's what they do constantly. Then when confronted by Creationists, they come back and say, "But man didn't evolved from monkeys or apes, we had a common ancestor".

So, I would like you to point me to this so called "Common Ancestor" that I believe to be non existent.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527500 wrote: I don't see it that way, but if you do, then ok. So, what you are saying is that evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys, but from "common ancestor". Exactly what is this so called common ancestor?




No, I'm not saying that at all. What I said was that the news story you mentioned had nothing to do with what you claimed it said, that's all. It had nothing to do with transitioning and nothing to do with monkeys. That's all. That's what I wrote. I did not write that "evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys".

At any moment over the last four billion years or so there has been life on Earth. For all of this time, each individual has had one overriding biological imperative, to increase the number of copies of its own personal genetic code carried into the future. The primary mechanism for selecting which individual best achieves that goal has been natural variation of that genetic code. If the variation has improved the individual's chance then on average, over all individuals, that benefit has increased the number of copies passed down the timeline.

There have been lots of strategies to achieve this variation, some of which (for the last half billion years at least) have been sexual.

A common ancestor is the fellow you find back along the tree if you take any two sexually-reproducing individuals anywhere in history and follow the track through all their ancestors until you find the same ancestor. If they reproduced sexually and you have two parents for each individual then it's a lot easier to track the generations than if they didn't - other forms of reproduction give alternative numbers of parents.

You and I have a most recent common ancestor, and that most recent common ancestor was a human who lived some time in the past. Depending on whether you're related to a British colonist or not, that most recent common ancestor lived anything between a hundred years ago and roughly a hundred thousand years ago.

None of the individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are likely to be your ancestor. None of the same-species individuals, which were capable of reproducing with those that were found, were necessarily your ancestor - that species might have easily have become extinct without leaving any successor species alive on Earth today. But all those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are related to you, either as direct ancestors or as descendants of earlier ones. The process of descending is a tree, you're on it and I'm on it and those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are on it and so is the apple you had for lunch, it's the only ancestry tree there is on Earth. The tree is explored these days using comparative genomics.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527507 wrote: No, I'm not saying that at all. What I said was that the news story you mentioned had nothing to do with what you claimed it said, that's all. It had nothing to do with transitioning and nothing to do with monkeys. That's all. That's what I wrote. I did not write that "evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys".

At any moment over the last four billion years or so there has been life on Earth. For all of this time, each individual has had one overriding biological imperative, to increase the number of copies of its own personal genetic code carried into the future. The primary mechanism for selecting which individual best achieves that goal has been natural variation of that genetic code. If the variation has improved the individual's chance then on average, over all individuals, that benefit has increased the number of copies passed down the timeline.

There have been lots of strategies to achieve this variation, some of which (for the last half billion years at least) have been sexual.

A common ancestor is the fellow you find back along the tree if you take any two sexually-reproducing individuals anywhere in history and follow the track through all their ancestors until you find the same ancestor. If they reproduced sexually and you have two parents for each individual then it's a lot easier to track the generations than if they didn't - other forms of reproduction give alternative numbers of parents.

You and I have a most recent common ancestor, and that most recent common ancestor was a human who lived some time in the past. Depending on whether you're related to a British colonist or not, that most recent common ancestor lived anything between a hundred years ago and roughly a hundred thousand years ago.

None of the individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are likely to be your ancestor. None of the same-species individuals, which were capable of reproducing with those that were found, were necessarily your ancestor - that species might have easily have become extinct without leaving any successor species alive on Earth today. But all those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are related to you, either as direct ancestors or as descendants of earlier ones. The process of descending is a tree, you're on it and I'm on it and those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are on it and so is the apple you had for lunch, it's the only ancestry tree there is on Earth. The tree is explored these days using comparative genomics.


I understand the theory of evolution. I went to public schools all of my life and took evolution classes in College. I am no expert in the area, but I am familiar with the basics.

Some questions I have for you:

What do you think about Irreducible complexity? Doesn't that prove that evolution is impossible? I believe it does.

How would the two sexes have evolved? It's impossible. One creature would have had to evolved all of the male parts, which would be a huge undertaking seeing how complex the male reproductive system is, then another of the same species would have to evolve the female parts, which would be another astronomical coincidence seeing how complex that would be. Next they would have to be in close proximity to each other. They would have to have a desire to mate. Then they would have to survive long enough to mate. Then the female would have to survive long enough to bear the child(ren). The odds of this happening would be a number greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

Next: How did matter and Energy come about out of nothing to create the Universe? This would directly violate the laws of Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics, which state that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. They can only be converted one to another.

Have you honestly looked at the arguments for Irreducible Complexity? If hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful, such as the eye, how can you explain that evolving?

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527531 wrote: Have you honestly looked at the arguments for Irreducible Complexity? If hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful, such as the eye, how can you explain that evolving?
No, I have never heard the expression used before. I'd happily answer you if, for example, you provide your preferred educational resource to put me in the picture. Wikipedia tells me the term dates from 1996, long after I left school. The article then says the idea "was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research", which may be as good an argument against as I could come up with if I knew the field.

I note also the sentence "Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity".

Both of the quotes I just used are referenced within the article.

I think my problem is that you refer to "Irreducible complexity" as fact, when it is clearly disputed by people I would give credence to. The subject is on the same level as Flat Earth as far as I can see. Both are matters of belief. I share neither. The Wikipedia article List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design provides many good reasons for thinking this outright dismissal to be reasonable.

Perhaps we could start again on the basis that neither of us is allowed to advance a belief as an argument. That way we can only introduce concepts we both agree are factual, I'd be interested to see what common ground we uncover. I'd very much like to do that.

The problem with asking "how can you explain evolving" is that the answer is very long. You start with a patch of skin which is more light or heat sensitive (they're the same thing) than its neighboring skin and then you make it more effective by dimpling it - to concentrate the effect - and increasing its nerve network to add discrimination. It's my understanding that a lot of the evolutionary history of an organ such as the eye is replayed step by step in foetal development, but I may turn out to be oversimplifying with that notion. On the other hand, perhaps I'm not.

If every single developmental step in evolving an eye improves the chance of passing on copies of an individual's genes then bingo, add time and you get an eye. The world-view of Intelligent Designers is being squeezed into narrower and narrower spaces as each of these developmental steps is uncovered and shown to be incrementally beneficial. The bogus part of your question is "if hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful". Plainly they don't. The end state is not implied in the initial steps, the simple initial steps themselves are significant aids to survival.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527539 wrote: No, I have never heard the expression used before. I'd happily answer you if, for example, you provide your preferred educational resource to put me in the picture. Wikipedia tells me the term dates from 1996, long after I left school. The article then says the idea "was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research", which may be as good an argument against as I could come up with if I knew the field.

I note also the sentence "Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity".

Both of the quotes I just used are referenced within the article.

I think my problem is that you refer to "Irreducible complexity" as fact, when it is clearly disputed by people I would give credence to. The subject is on the same level as Flat Earth as far as I can see. Both are matters of belief. I share neither. The Wikipedia article List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design provides many good reasons for think this outright dismissal to be reasonable.

Perhaps we could start again on the basis that neither of us is allowed to advance a belief as an argument. That way we can only introduce concepts we both agree are factual, I'd be interested to see what common ground we uncover. I'd very much like to do that.

The problem with asking "how can you explain evolving" is that the answer is very long. You start with a patch of skin which is more light or heat sensitive (they're the same thing) than its neighboring skin and then you make it more effective by dimpling it - to concentrate the effect - and increasing its nerve network to add discrimination. It's my understanding that a lot of the evolutionary history of an organ such as the eye is replayed step by step in foetal development, but I may turn out to be oversimplifying with that notion. On the other hand, perhaps I'm not.

If every single developmental step in evolving an eye improves the chance of passing on copies of an individual's genes then bingo, add time and you get an eye. The world-view of Intelligent Designers is being squeezed into narrower and narrower spaces as each of these developmental steps is uncovered and shown to be incrementally beneficial. The bogus part of your question is "if hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful". Plainly they don't. The end state is not implied in the initial steps, the simple initial steps themselves are significant aids to survival.


Yes, I have noticed that Wiki is now taking a proactive approach to explaining things that don't line up with the Liberal view point as somehow "pseudoscience". They didn't used to do this, but obviously, they are now caving to pressure from the Liberal community.

Irreducible Complexity is fact. It is a fact that in order for the eye to work, there are hundreds or thousands of parts that are dependent on each other and could not work independently of each other, according to Scientists. The 2 sexes are a fact and it is a fact that both sexual reproductive systems are very complex and would have had to evolved independently of one another, while the creature was still reproducing a sexually. There would be no benefit for any of the parts to evolve until they are complete and able to function and both sexes would have to have developed compatible one to another. Plus, once in place, both creatures would have to be in the same proximity to mate with each other, they would have to have the desire to mate with each other. What would happen to the a sexual aspect of it's reproduction? It's just impossible. Evolutionists need eons of time to explain their false conclusions. If what you say is true, why don't see organs that are forming in animals that have no use, but will some day be useful? That couldn't have happened with the eye.

It's not even close to being Flat Earth. Flat Earth is easily debunked and truly not based on Science. Creationism and Irreducible Complexity IS based on actual Science. Truthfully, Evolutionists are afraid to debate Creationists because they usually get their butts handed to them. I listen to a talk show and this talk show host is a Creationist and not even a Scientist, but he has Evolutionists with PHDs on his show and he frustrates them to the point where they hang up on him because he makes points that they cannot refute or explain. I have heard it time and time again on his show.

Everyone starts with a belief. Everyone is influenced by them. It's impossible to research without some sort of belief as your base, and draw any meaningful conclusions about the data. I see this in politics as well. There are people who say that you can't let your personal beliefs like your religion dictate your policies, but the non religious do the very same thing. Everyone's beliefs dictate their decisions. So I don't see how we could discuss this without having our own pre conceived ideas about things.

The amount of time to get an eye would be astronomical. The number of years would be equal to the size of the amount of atoms in the Universe years.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527567 wrote: The amount of time to get an eye would be astronomical. The number of years would be equal to the size of the amount of atoms in the Universe years.


And yet you believe in a self-created omnipotent eternal God which can design and create an eye where previously no eye or design existed? And that's the sum of where the eye originated?

And you don't think this is contradictory or inconsistent?

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527570 wrote: And yet you believe in a self-created omnipotent eternal God which can design and create an eye where previously no eye or design existed? And that's the sum of where the eye originated?

And you don't think this is contradictory or inconsistent?


Yes, that is the only way it could have happened. God's power is above all of the Laws of probability. He created them.

Think about the fact that it is Scientifically impossible for matter and energy to exist in the first place because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy.

How did the matter and energy here in violation with Scientific Law?

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527629 wrote: Yes, that is the only way it could have happened. God's power is above all of the Laws of probability. He created them.

Think about the fact that it is Scientifically impossible for matter and energy to exist in the first place because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy.

How did the matter and energy here in violation with Scientific Law?


If you have an infinity anywhere in the universe then you have God as a creator. God is another name for "Dunno, can't figure it, I'm stuck, let's invent a primal cause and give it a name". Infinity in maths, no problem. Infinity in the universe, God.

If, instead, you treat both time and space as emergent properties, you have a closed system with no infinity anywhere. Everything is measurable and finite. There is no start, what there is exists in a framework with no "outside".

You can choose to do the sums one way or you can do them the other. What I like about physics is that it so precisely and accurately reflects observation. Maths is restrained only by the imagination. Religion and belief are matters of choice. Rather than wallow in interpreting the world through the prism of hallowed texts and practices I prefer to know what can be seen.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary. There's six minutes worth of discussion at which encapsulates the two questions you posed, I dislike answering a question with a video clip but watching it is a damn sight easier than reading a book on the topic, and this one has the virtue of brevity. It basically says what I just wrote.

[Raphael]

Just an idle thought in passing :-

In quantum mechanics I gather there is, in one sense, no multiplicity of space time location .

That is , all locations are in instantaneous contact with each other .They are each other .

If there is no differentiation between location co-ordinates there is no figure /total greater than one . My suggested hypothesis .



Then --- and remembering A.J. Ayer I believe -- what looks grammatically like a question is not .

That is , asking for one to be split into smaller parts with the term infinity included is a total no -no .

Or is that rubbish ? A one minute establishment position but no attempt to test -- no ginger cats readily available .

[spot]

Raphael;1527664 wrote: Just an idle thought in passing :-

In quantum mechanics I gather there is, in one sense, no multiplicity of space time location .

That is , all locations are in instantaneous contact with each other .They are each other .




I expect people take it further still and say there's only one particle, it just bounces back and forth in time and what you see out there is how many times it did it.

[Raphael]

Exactly .

The Trappists and Yogi have it figured .

Wonder what the membership fee is these days .

[spot]

Raphael;1527673 wrote: Exactly .

The Trappists and Yogi have it figured .

Wonder what the membership fee is these days .


Pain, mostly, according to the practitioners. Or as Teresa of Avila memorably side-stepped the question, "Pain is never permanent" - how to seduce the novitiates, that one.

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527646 wrote: If you have an infinity anywhere in the universe then you have God as a creator. God is another name for "Dunno, can't figure it, I'm stuck, let's invent a primal cause and give it a name". Infinity in maths, no problem. Infinity in the universe, God.

If, instead, you treat both time and space as emergent properties, you have a closed system with no infinity anywhere. Everything is measurable and finite. There is no start, what there is exists in a framework with no "outside".

You can choose to do the sums one way or you can do them the other. What I like about physics is that it so precisely and accurately reflects observation. Maths is restrained only by the imagination. Religion and belief are matters of choice. Rather than wallow in interpreting the world through the prism of hallowed texts and practices I prefer to know what can be seen.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary. There's six minutes worth of discussion at which encapsulates the two questions you posed, I dislike answering a question with a video clip but watching it is a damn sight easier than reading a book on the topic, and this one has the virtue of brevity. It basically says what I just wrote.


Well that's exactly what Scientists say, it is a closed system. I agree 100%. There is a finite amount of matter and energy and scientifically it also cannot be created nor destroyed. If that is true, then it is impossible scientifically for matter and energy to exist in the first place, yet here it is. With that said, I believe that there is an infinite God that created all matter and energy, scientific laws, ect.

I am willing to watch your videos, but I equally expect you do watch mine if possible. Deal? I will watch your video.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1527743 wrote: I am willing to watch your videos, but I equally expect you do watch mine if possible. Deal? I will watch your video.


It was under six minutes and it was from the lecture theatre of the Royal Society. Admittedly the speaker was foreign.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1527743 wrote: Well that's exactly what Scientists say, it is a closed system. I agree 100%. There is a finite amount of matter and energy and scientifically it also cannot be created nor destroyed. If that is true, then it is impossible scientifically for matter and energy to exist in the first place, yet here it is. With that said, I believe that there is an infinite God that created all matter and energy, scientific laws, ect.

I am willing to watch your videos, but I equally expect you do watch mine if possible. Deal? I will watch your video.


What scientists say that the Universe is a Closed system?

[xfrodobagginsx]

spot;1527749 wrote: It was under six minutes and it was from the lecture theatre of the Royal Society. Admittedly the speaker was foreign.


Ok, the biggest problem with what Sean Caroll said is that the Big Bang doesn't break any laws. That's false because his starting point is "The Big Bang" Which requires Matter and/or Energy which cannot Scientifically exist on their own. Everything he says after that is based on these things existing already. It's also a lot of maybe this and maybe that. It's also speculation and not based on fact, which you said that you only like to go by facts. His multiverse theory sounds interesting, but again is not based on any facts.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1527750 wrote: What scientists say that the Universe is a Closed system?


You. I thought that's what you just said and I agreed with you.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1527754 wrote: You. I thought that's what you just said and I agreed with you.


Well, I have never claimed to be a scientist, but even if I were one, I would not say such a thing.

[xfrodobagginsx]

LarsMac;1527757 wrote: Well, I have never claimed to be a scientist, but even if I were one, I would not say such a thing.


Sorry, I was referring to Spot essentially saying that, not you.