# Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"



## abu afak

I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
*
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
by Ellery Schempp
Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

All physics textbooks should include this warning label:

“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.

First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.

The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
[...... Big snip........]
It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I've decided to repeal the law of gravity.  Here goes.  I feel myself getting lighter.  Now it takes both hands to hold onto the keyboard. I had better turn on the voice typing feature........there, that's done.  Now I can conti.......I am losing my grip..........HELP ME!!!!!  I AM RISING UP FASTER........   hisssing sound.

That's another stupid person that ignored science.  Darwin takes care of them sooner or later.


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`




All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.


.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Every time a person proves it by jumping up and not coming down, they float off into space, get sucked into the sun and burn up.  They never get the chance to file the paperwork.


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> .


Another Dolt.
Scientific theories, tho FACTS like Gravity, do not get "Proved."
Only Math deals in "Proofs".
Theories get affirmed over time and become Facts as well.
Facts do not necessarily need "proof" just repeated true observation and predictability.

In fact, Most Murder convictions don't really have absolute "Proof," but lots of Circumstantial EVIDENCE that leads to Conclusions (not really "proof") beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evolution has a better evidentiary case than most of those convictions.
`
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Another Dolt.
> Sciebtific theories, tho FACTS like Gravity, do not get "Proved."
> Only Math deals in "Proofs".
> Theories get affirmed over time and become Facts as well.
> Facts do not need "proof".
> `
Click to expand...



Once again prove it and quit your babbling...


.


----------



## Tax Man

Gravity sucks! Actually gravity is another name for molecular attraction.


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .


*"Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.*

And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.

Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> "Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
> Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.
> 
> And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
> Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.
> 
> Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
> `
Click to expand...



You don't have no facts only a theory 


the·o·ry
ˈTHirē/
_noun_

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More

a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"


*WRONG Entry you MORON.
Precisely the target of this thread. Just PERFECT you 12 IQ Clown!*

1. Wiki: 'Scientific Theory'

*....The definition of a Scientific Theory*
(often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly Different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". 
In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​

2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
Scientific American - June 2002
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
[......]
*1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....
`​


----------



## Votto

Tax Man said:


> Gravity sucks! Actually gravity is another name for molecular attraction.



Right, one molecule looks at the other molecules and says, "Wow, he or she is really hot"

So how do molecules attract each other?  You don't know?  The hell you say.

It is mind blowing what we blindly accept.  We accept "gravity" as existing like we accept darkness as existing.

Problem is, darkness does not exist, and gravity  may be in the same category.  No, darkness is merely a description of a lack of light.  Light is what exists, not darkness.


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
Click to expand...



That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?



.


----------



## Votto

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Careful now.  Our belief system is how we make sense of the world.  Threaten that belief system, and we have a crisis until a new belief system can take its place.

We are wired this way because as the OP rightly said, we can prove precious little outside a math class.  All we do is base our lives on a belief system that seems right to us and then assign things value based upon that system in order to make sense of the world and function.

So don't go making them have a nervous break down or anything.


----------



## MindWars

Which is as retarded as the morons pushing the " Flat earth" bs.  The moon is round, every other planet is round so earth just happens to be FLAT, and no gravity.  And lets ad they just have to say it's from religion.


----------



## Votto

MindWars said:


> Which is as retarded as the morons pushing the " Flat earth" bs.  The moon is round, every other planet is round so earth just happens to be FLAT, and no gravity.  And lets ad they just have to say it's from religion.



It has always puzzled me how people look up and see that the moon is round, the sun is round, and if you get a telescope the planets our round, etc.........only to insist that the Earth isn't.


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> .


That's  called making a Mockery of your STUPIDITY, and the "only a theory" FALLACY.

*You did NOT know there was a difference between theory and SCIENTIFIC theory you IDIOT!*
YOU are precisely the target of this thread.
Thanks for playing/Proving my point.
YOU "Prove" Gravity Akhmed!
YOU "Prove" this is a message board!
Make my day.

I don't have to prove anything you Moron
Bye
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

Votto said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful now.  Our belief system is how we make sense of the world.  Threaten that belief system, and we have a crisis until a new belief system can take its place.
> 
> We are wired this way because as the OP rightly said, we can prove precious little outside a math class.  All we do is base our lives on a belief system that seems right to us and then assign things value based upon that system in order to make sense of the world and function.
> 
> So don't go making them have a nervous break down or anything.
Click to expand...



Great post and theory  


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That's  called making a Mockery of your STUPIDITY, and the "only a theory" FALLACY.
> 
> Yoiuh didn NOT knloew the difference between theoirey and SCIENTIFIC theory you IDIOT!
> YOU are precisely the target of this thread.
> "Prove" Gravity Akhmed!
> "Prove" this is a message board!
> Make my day.
> 
> I don't have to prove anything you Moron
> Bye
> `
Click to expand...



Ahh poor baby , your beliefs being mocked?


Now prove gravity is a fact...


.


----------



## The Irish Ram

*5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*






A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.

We are only as smart as our next scientist...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`





The Irish Ram said:


> *5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.
> 
> We are only as smart as our next scientist...


But we keep getting smarter. Ya left that part out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Now prove gravity is a fact...


Easy! We test it as many times as we can, in as many ways as we can. Eventually, we become satisfied that it is, indeed, fact.

I have an idea. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, then record how many times you fall up.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> *5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.
> 
> We are only as smart as our next scientist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we keep getting smarter. Ya left that part out.
Click to expand...



If only that was true , we wouldnt have elected Bush Jr,  Obama and now trump..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> *5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.
> 
> We are only as smart as our next scientist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we keep getting smarter. Ya left that part out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If only that was true , we wouldnt have elected Bush Jr,  Obama and now trump..
Click to expand...

Not so, those were not scientific experiments.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove gravity is a fact...
> 
> 
> 
> Waste! We test it as many times as we can, in as many ways as we can. Eventually, we become satisfied that it is, indeed, fact.
> 
> I have an idea. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, then record how many times you fall up.
Click to expand...



Send me to galaxy messiesr 82 and I will post my results in a few thousand light years.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> *5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.
> 
> We are only as smart as our next scientist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we keep getting smarter. Ya left that part out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If only that was true , we wouldnt have elected Bush Jr,  Obama and now trump..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so, those were not scientific experiments.
Click to expand...



Obama was



.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now prove gravity is a fact...
> 
> 
> 
> Waste! We test it as many times as we can, in as many ways as we can. Eventually, we become satisfied that it is, indeed, fact.
> 
> I have an idea. Jump off of your roof 1000 times, then record how many times you fall up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Send me to galaxy messiesr 82 and I will post my results in a few thousand light years.
Click to expand...

I would love to. Save me a seat.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> *5- Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. It was problematic from the beginning. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.
> 
> We are only as smart as our next scientist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we keep getting smarter. Ya left that part out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If only that was true , we wouldnt have elected Bush Jr,  Obama and now trump..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so, those were not scientific experiments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yes, an attempt to answer the question, "Would the GOP lose it's mind, if a black guy ate their lunch?"

As it turns out....yep!


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Which means what?


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Another Dolt.
> Sciebtific theories, tho FACTS like Gravity, do not get "Proved."
> Only Math deals in "Proofs".
> Theories get affirmed over time and become Facts as well.
> Facts do not need "proof".
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Bear, how do you survive getting out of bed in the morning with this level of ignorance? Theories are never proved, they simply survive until they are either falsified, or accepted as the general frame work for that natural phenomenon. They are never accepted as 'proof', only as the best model we currently have. And, often, when the current model is shown not to present the overall picture, still retained in part as they are workable for most situations. Newtonian and Relativistic Physics, Uniformitarianism and current geological theory that includes impacts, caldera volcanics, and massive floods.


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> "Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
> Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.
> 
> And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
> Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.
> 
> Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
Click to expand...

Dumb ass, facts support theory, not the other way around.


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

LOL  Just jump off a 100 story building, and then tell me if gravity is a fact. LOL


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  Just jump off a 100 story building, and then tell me if gravity is a fact. LOL
Click to expand...



Still not proof...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG Entry you MORON.*
> 
> 1. Wiki:
> 
> *....The definition of a scientific theory*
> (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".
> In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
> No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  Just jump off a 100 story building, and then tell me if gravity is a fact. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still not proof...
Click to expand...

Then what is? Be specific.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> "Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
> Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.
> 
> And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
> Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.
> 
> Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass, facts support theory, not the other way around.
Click to expand...



No it's your _*belief*_ that gravity is a *fact*

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> "Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
> Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.
> 
> And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
> Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.
> 
> Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass, facts support theory, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it's your _*belief*_ that gravity is a *fact*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Oh boy, here we go....and all beliefs are equal, and all are faith. *Yawn*


----------



## Votto

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's called a Bullshit theory, now fucking prove it to us that gravity is a fact, why do you keep avoiding my simple question?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> That's  called making a Mockery of your STUPIDITY, and the "only a theory" FALLACY.
> 
> Yoiuh didn NOT knloew the difference between theoirey and SCIENTIFIC theory you IDIOT!
> YOU are precisely the target of this thread.
> "Prove" Gravity Akhmed!
> "Prove" this is a message board!
> Make my day.
> 
> I don't have to prove anything you Moron
> Bye
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh poor baby , your beliefs being mocked?
> 
> 
> Now prove gravity is a fact...
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be funny if gravity was really the direct power of God every time.

LMAO!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again prove it and quit your babbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> "Prove" this is a message board you 12 IQ Asshole.
> Facts do not need "proof", and the vast majority don't have them.
> 
> And of course, if Evo isn't true, then Kweationism is.
> Yet, unlike Evo, There isn' even ANY evidence for God/Dog, much less proof.
> 
> Now back to Infowars you Proof Poof.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have no facts only a theory
> 
> 
> the·o·ry
> ˈTHirē/
> _noun_
> 
> a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
> "Darwin's theory of evolution"
> synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
> a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
> "a theory of education"
> an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
> "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb ass, facts support theory, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it's your _*belief*_ that gravity is a *fact*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh boy, here we go....and all beliefs are equal, and all are faith. *Yawn*
Click to expand...



The entire OP was " here we go again" like we never had this thread before on the internet,  in my estimination it's like the 3,895,962 one..

It's a belief system that gravity  is a fact , just like it's a belief system that man has caused global climate change 100%  ...  


That's the difference  between us and you we have an open mind and wouldn't surprise us if it turns out to be false.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Anyways I thought liberals were supposed to seek the truth instead of being narcissist and think we already found the truth?


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> Anyways I thought liberals were supposed to seek the truth instead of being narcissist and think we already found the truth?



^^^

That's being a flat earther btw


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> It's a belief system that gravity is a fact , just like it's a belief system that man has caused global climate change 100% ...


Wow, that's insightful. Like i said, here we go
.."all beliefs are equal, because they are just beliefs"....okay.


By the way, you never outlined your standards of proof. Do you plan to do so?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Anyways I thought liberals were supposed to seek the truth instead of being narcissist and think we already found the truth?


Well, that gives a lot of insight into your odd poisition. Scientific knowledge doesn't care who you voted for.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways I thought liberals were supposed to seek the truth instead of being narcissist and think we already found the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that gives a lot of insight into your odd poisition. Scientific knowledge doesn't care who you voted for.
Click to expand...



Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....the majority are narcissist liberals , it's the only way to try to pass your liberal agendas, we only live 100 years and we are still such a young species ..


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....*the majority are narcissist liberals* , it's the only way to try to pass your liberal agendas, we only live 100 years and we are still such a young species ..


That's just your "belief".
And it's as least as Stupid as the rest of them.
People who believe in Evo are "Narcissists" no less!
A subjective Psycho babble term with "No Proof"... EVER.
LOL Brain Damaged guy.

But sorry to interrupt your WWE match.
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....*the majority are narcissist liberals* , it's the only way to try to pass your liberal agendas, we only live 100 years and we are still such a young species ..
> 
> 
> 
> That's just your "belief".
> And it's as least as Stupid as the rest of them.
> People who believe in Evo are "Narcissists" no less!
> A subjective Psycho babble term with "No Proof"... EVER.
> LOL Brain Damaged guy.
> 
> But sorry to interrupt your WWE match.
> `
Click to expand...


That's your retort, once again I mock you and your narcissist belief that we found all the answers...so that's so egotistical it's hilarious


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....the majority are narcissist liberals


That has absolutely no bearing on the truth of a scientific theory. You sound insane. Listen to yourself.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....the majority are narcissist liberals
> 
> 
> 
> That has absolutely no bearing on the truth of a scientific theory. You sound insane. Listen to yourself.
Click to expand...



How do I sound insane, when I know we will find more truth out there.. I guess I am more of progressive then you..

You want to claim it's absolute,  I say it's not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> How do I sound insane


Simple, you appear think your emotions, fetishes, superstitions and neuroses are a valid substitute for mountains of scientific evidence.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....the majority are narcissist liberals
> 
> 
> 
> That has absolutely no bearing on the truth of a scientific theory. You sound insane. Listen to yourself.
Click to expand...



Once again just for you, only maths are fact, as an industrial maintenance guy who knows electricity like the back of my hand , I still see shit I can't explain..we measure electricity with electricity,  as an example


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well look who are the ones who think it's a scientific fact....the majority are narcissist liberals
> 
> 
> 
> That has absolutely no bearing on the truth of a scientific theory. You sound insane. Listen to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again just for you, only maths are fact, as an industrial maintenance guy who knows electricity like the back of my hand , I still see shit I can't explain..we measure electricity with electricity,  as an example
Click to expand...

Yes yes, I know. You entire line is predictable and tired. Oh, and it's a steaming pile of bullshit that even you do not believe. Else, you would not even be able to function in your "factless" world. You would jump off of roofs thinking you might fall up...you would stick forks in electrical outlets...

Nah, this is the same tired rhetoric that religious nutballs use when the empirical evidence does not jibe with their magical nonsense. "Nothing can ever be truly known"...well, except for their magical beliefs, of course.


----------



## hjmick

Gravity is both law and theory...


----------



## abu afak

hjmick said:


> Gravity is both law and theory...


And Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.

"Theory" is the "strongest statement one can make about the universe".
"Law" does not outrank it.
Laws just usually also contain an equation if relevent.
see, 
At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? • r/askscience
`


----------



## rightwinger

Why do things fall to earth?

Because God wants them to


----------



## abu afak

rightwinger said:


> Why do things fall to earth?
> 
> Because God wants them to


I have a separate OP ready to go on that. 
Just giving this one some breathing room first.
`


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Why do things fall to earth?
> 
> Because God wants them to



No, no, atoms just really like each other.


----------



## abu afak

At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? : askscience


In science, a theory is the strongest statement we can confidently make about the universe. Historically, labels of "law" were given out when phenomena were rigorously tested and shown to hold up, but the point is that a physical description of the universe is (1) entirely valid in the regimes where it has been rigorously tested and (2) cannot be considered inherently valid in areas where it has not been experimentally verified.

With that in mind, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a _much better_ representation of our physical world than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Newtonian gravity is perfectly valid under certain regimes (low energy, macroscopic scale), but is no longer valid at higher energies, whereas general relativity can give good, verifiable predictions in the same regime that Newtonian gravity does, as well as at much higher speeds."..."​
`


----------



## rightwinger

Much like evolution, Gravity has yet to be proven


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rightwinger said:


> Much like evolution, Gravity has yet to be proven



You keep this up and Trump will shut down the Government because he doesn't believe in Gravity or Evolution.  And until you agree with him, the Government will be shut down.


----------



## rightwinger

Votto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do things fall to earth?
> 
> Because God wants them to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, atoms just really like each other.
Click to expand...

Is that a physical or romantic attraction?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

rightwinger said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do things fall to earth?
> 
> Because God wants them to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, atoms just really like each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that a physical or romantic attraction?
Click to expand...


Is that an electron in your pocket or are you just really happy to see me.


----------



## Votto

What the hell is gravity anyway?

You can't see it, can't measure it, etc.  Show me a gravity particle.

I'm not sure you kids realize the gravity of the situation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> What the hell is gravity anyway?
> 
> You can't see it, can't measure it, etc.  Show me a gravity particle.
> 
> I'm not sure you kids realize the gravity of the situation.


But....you're going to explain it to us?


----------



## westwall

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`









Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.  We actually know very, very little about gravity.  Were you not a scientific illiterate, you would know that.


----------



## abu afak

westwall said:


> Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.  We actually know very, very little about gravity.  Were you not a scientific illiterate, you would know that.


Hey WetWall!
Disputing Gravity now too along with Evolution/Darwin?
*
You, the self-described "Liberal Democrat" are both Stupid a raging Liar.*
And absolutely a Conservative poster here. 
*When I challenged you to produce a single post that justifies your self-description..
You could NOT.*

YOU LYING/DELUDED SACK OF ****.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.


No. It's a scientific theory. While it is true that it is an "effective theory",it is a scientific theory all the same, which makes it different than and more than "just a theory".

But you are welcome to jump off a high building 1000 times and record how many times you fall up instead of down. Everybody is. All challengers to scientific theories are welcome.


----------



## deanrd

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


 There is the theory of intelligent falling that was outlined in the onion. A publication this is about as true as the Bible.

The theory of intelligent falling


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I can prove gravity.  I decided to throw myself to the ground in a fit of rage and missed.  I stood there and said, "See, I just disproved the theory of Gravity".  Actually, the only thing I proved was I was just another right wing nutter trying to throw out science.


----------



## Crepitus

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Gravity is an illusion, the earth just sucks.  Mostly because of all the science-denying conservitards on it.


----------



## miketx

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It's already been proven. Isaac Newton showed why objects move like they do in the solar system, and Edmund Halley confirmed it when he used Newtons "new math" to successfully predict the return of his comet. Also, we couldn't go to the moon without that math or to Mars or anywhere off the planet. Gravitational mechanics are integral to space flight, since once in space, the craft becomes one of those objects moving in the solar system that Newton showed us why they moved like they did.


----------



## abu afak

miketx said:


> It's already been proven. Isaac Newton showed why objects move like they do in the solar system, and Edmund Halley confirmed it when he used Newtons "new math" to successfully predict the return of his comet. Also, we couldn't go to the moon without that math or to Mars or anywhere off the planet. Gravitational mechanics are integral to space flight, since once in space, the craft becomes one of those objects moving in the solar system that Newton showed us why they moved like they did.


At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? : askscience

*In science, a theory is the strongest statement we can confidently make about the universe.* Historically, labels of "law" were given out when phenomena were rigorously tested and shown to hold up, but the point is that a physical description of the universe is (1) entirely valid in the regimes where it has been rigorously tested and (2) cannot be considered inherently valid in areas where it has not been experimentally verified.

With that in mind, *Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a much better representation of our physical world than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.* Newtonian gravity is perfectly valid under certain regimes (low energy, macroscopic scale), but is no longer valid at higher energies, whereas general relativity can give good, verifiable predictions in the same regime that Newtonian gravity does, as well as at much higher speeds."..."​
`


----------



## miketx

abu afak said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already been proven. Isaac Newton showed why objects move like they do in the solar system, and Edmund Halley confirmed it when he used Newtons "new math" to successfully predict the return of his comet. Also, we couldn't go to the moon without that math or to Mars or anywhere off the planet. Gravitational mechanics are integral to space flight, since once in space, the craft becomes one of those objects moving in the solar system that Newton showed us why they moved like they did.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, is gravity still a theory or law? : askscience
> 
> *In science, a theory is the strongest statement we can confidently make about the universe.* Historically, labels of "law" were given out when phenomena were rigorously tested and shown to hold up, but the point is that a physical description of the universe is (1) entirely valid in the regimes where it has been rigorously tested and (2) cannot be considered inherently valid in areas where it has not been experimentally verified.
> 
> With that in mind, *Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a much better representation of our physical world than Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.* Newtonian gravity is perfectly valid under certain regimes (low energy, macroscopic scale), but is no longer valid at higher energies, whereas general relativity can give good, verifiable predictions in the same regime that Newtonian gravity does, as well as at much higher speeds."..."​
> `
Click to expand...

We need a space propulsion system that does away with Newtonian travel so we can go to Mars in two days!


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a scientific theory. While it is true that it is an "effective theory",it is a scientific theory all the same, which makes it different than and more than "just a theory".
> 
> But you are welcome to jump off a high building 1000 times and record how many times you fall up instead of down. Everybody is. All challengers to scientific theories are welcome.
Click to expand...





Where did I say otherwise?  Clearly your English skills are as minimal as your scientific acumen.


----------



## westwall

miketx said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is prove it and you will win a Nobel prize.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been proven. Isaac Newton showed why objects move like they do in the solar system, and Edmund Halley confirmed it when he used Newtons "new math" to successfully predict the return of his comet. Also, we couldn't go to the moon without that math or to Mars or anywhere off the planet. Gravitational mechanics are integral to space flight, since once in space, the craft becomes one of those objects moving in the solar system that Newton showed us why they moved like they did.
Click to expand...






Don't forget the Feynman Constant which corrected the errors in the Newtonian mechanics that are ultimately what allow space travel.  Funny how that supposed "Law" keeps getting rewritten.  

And that is why the theory of gravity is not a law.  We have such minimal ability to measure gravity that we are like blind people trying to describe a aircraft carrier...by feel, from the waters surface.


----------



## EasyPeasy

So is evolution.


----------



## Oddball

westwall said:


> Don't forget the Feynman Constant which corrected the errors in the Newtonian mechanics that are ultimately what allow space travel.  Funny how that supposed "Law" keeps getting rewritten.
> 
> And that is why the theory of gravity is not a law.  We have such minimal ability to measure gravity that we are like blind people trying to describe a aircraft carrier...by feel, from the waters surface.


Even so, we can still quantify it, measure its pull, and falsify that anything other than gravity is keeping us stuck to the face of this watery rock...All of which is completely absent from Goebbels warming hypotheses.


----------



## Flopper

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


In science, theories supported by scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge.  All theory is subject to revision.


----------



## Chuz Life

Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.

Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.


----------



## westwall

Flopper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> In science, theories supported by scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge.  All theory is subject to revision.
Click to expand...






Consensus is a political word my friend.  Not a scientific one.


----------



## westwall

abu afak said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.  We actually know very, very little about gravity.  Were you not a scientific illiterate, you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey WetWall!
> Disputing Gravity now too along with Evolution/Darwin?
> *
> You, the self-described "Liberal Democrat" are both Stupid a raging Liar.*
> And absolutely a Conservative poster here.
> *When I challenged you to produce a single post that justifies your self-description..
> You could NOT.*
> 
> YOU LYING/DELUDED SACK OF ****.
> `
Click to expand...






Where am I disputing gravity, moron.  I merely stated that science knows extremely little about it.  You too, are a scientific doofus.


----------



## miketx

westwall said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, I don't know what you're bleating about, but the theory of gravity is just that.  We actually know very, very little about gravity.  Were you not a scientific illiterate, you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey WetWall!
> Disputing Gravity now too along with Evolution/Darwin?
> *
> You, the self-described "Liberal Democrat" are both Stupid a raging Liar.*
> And absolutely a Conservative poster here.
> *When I challenged you to produce a single post that justifies your self-description..
> You could NOT.*
> 
> YOU LYING/DELUDED SACK OF ****.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where am I disputing gravity, moron.  I merely stated that science knows extremely little about it.  You too, are a scientific doofus.
Click to expand...


----------



## miketx

You humans do not really understand gravity at all. This image:





Was captured by one of our satellites and shows the gamma ray burst that is always created when we drop out of fold space into your system from Gehtanu. I froze the image so you can see how gravity is pushing the gamma ray streamers back in the opposite direction of my trajectory. If you hairless apes can ever figure out why this happens, you will understand gravity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Where did I say otherwise?


By calling it "just a theory". Let me help you out:

"The theory of gravity is just that".

In my native tongue, English (what's yours?), your pronoun "that" stands for "a theory", as mentioned earlier in the sentence. You didn't say "scientific theory", you said, "just (a theory)". I hope this free English lesson serves you well. The next one won't be free.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.


Good grief shaman, can ONE thread NOT be about abortion?


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> By calling it "just a theory". Let me help you out:
> 
> "The theory of gravity is just that".
> 
> In my native tongue, English (what's yours?), your pronoun "that" stands for "a theory", as mentioned earlier in the sentence. You didn't say "scientific theory", you said, "just (a theory)". I hope this free English lesson serves you well. The next one won't be free.
Click to expand...






What a idiot you are.  ALL theories that deal with science, are scientific.  You 'tard.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Oddball said:


> Even so, we can still quantify it, measure its pull, and falsify that anything other than gravity is keeping us stuck to the face of this watery rock...All of which is completely absent from Goebbels warming hypotheses.


100% wrong. Like, literally every word .


----------



## toobfreak

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`




I'm not sure if you are kidding here, but gravity is a physical phenomena, not a theory.  All they lack is finding the force carrier behind it (the "gravitron).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Gravity is a physical phenomenon. The theory of gravity is a scientific theory. Same for the theory of electromagnetism, quantum mechanical Theory, and anthropogenic global warming Theory. Scientific theories both explain what we have observed and successfully predict what we will observe.


----------



## Flopper

Chuz Life said:


> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.


The question of whether a human life begins at conception or birth or some stage of development is something science can't answer because it depends on how a person defines a human life and there is certainly strong difference of opinion on that issue.  Theories are based on accepted truths.


----------



## Flopper

toobfreak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are kidding here, but gravity is a physical phenomena, not a theory.  All they lack is finding the force carrier behind it (the "gravitron).
Click to expand...

The definition of a *theory* is an idea to explain something, gravity, the Oxygen theory of combustion, Cell Theory, etc.

Gravity is most accurately described by the *general theory of relativity* (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.


----------



## Chuz Life

Flopper said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether a human life begins at conception or birth or some stage of development is something science can't answer because it depends on how a person defines a human life and there is certainly strong difference of opinion on that issue.  Theories are based on accepted truths.
Click to expand...



Really?

Are you claiming that human beings somehow MORPH out of one organism that is NOT a human being and into an organism that IS?


----------



## toobfreak

Flopper said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you are kidding here, but gravity is a physical phenomena, not a theory.  All they lack is finding the force carrier behind it (the "gravitron).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of a *theory* is an idea to explain something, gravity, the Oxygen theory of combustion, Cell Theory, etc.
> 
> Gravity is most accurately described by the *general theory of relativity* (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I'm very familiar with it.  And its predictions have been tested and proven time and time again showing the validity of Einstein's equations.  One of the more famous observational tests is the "Einstein Cross,"  caused by the gravitational lensing of a foreground galaxy bending the light of another galaxy far in the background to appear as a ring or split into many duplicate images.


----------



## abu afak

Flopper said:


> In science, theories supported by scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge.  All theory is subject to revision.


Yes, I know quite well.
ie, See my posts here
*#10,* 51, 55, etc
You gotta at least read pg 1 of a thread you jump in, or more if's it's not 10 pages+.
Welcome to the section.
`


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief shaman, can ONE thread NOT be about abortion?
Click to expand...


I raised the point for others to see and consider how inconsistent leftardz are when it comes down to which theories they will and will not ascribe to. 

I did not say anything in this thread about abortion.

You DID, however. . .  

That's kind of funny.


----------



## fncceo

Tax Man said:


> Gravity sucks! Actually gravity is another name for molecular attraction.



Actually, not.  Molecules for by covalent, ionic, or hydrogen bonds.

Gravity isn't a factor.


----------



## Flopper

Chuz Life said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether a human life begins at conception or birth or some stage of development is something science can't answer because it depends on how a person defines a human life and there is certainly strong difference of opinion on that issue.  Theories are based on accepted truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Are you claiming that human beings somehow MORPH out of one organism that is NOT a human being and into an organism that IS?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to derail this thread to a debate about the beginning of human life.  I suggest you start your own thread.


----------



## Chuz Life

Flopper said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that we have just as much evidence (I think significantly more) to support the fact that a child's life begins at conception, than we have in the way of evidence to "prove" the theories of gravity, evolution and especially man made climate change.
> 
> Yet, look at the theories the leftardz are most compelled to adopt as their religion (and blindly follow by faith) the most.
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether a human life begins at conception or birth or some stage of development is something science can't answer because it depends on how a person defines a human life and there is certainly strong difference of opinion on that issue.  Theories are based on accepted truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Are you claiming that human beings somehow MORPH out of one organism that is NOT a human being and into an organism that IS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to derail this thread to a debate about the beginning of human life.  I suggest you start your own thread.
Click to expand...



The subject is "theories" and the evidence to support them.

Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do.

Leftardz tend to gravitate towards theories with HUGE leaps of faith while they summarily dismiss "theories" that have substantially more evidence to support them.

I find that to be very telling and my point has already been made.

I don't need for you to discuss it any further, 

Thanks.


----------



## abu afak

Chuz Life said:


> The subject is "theories" and the evidence to support them. Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do.
> Leftardz tend to gravitate towards theories with HUGE leaps of faith while they summarily dismiss "theories" that have substantially more evidence to support them. I find that to be very telling and my point has already been made.I don't need for you to discuss it any further,
> Thanks.


160 YEARS and the greatest Scientific explosion in history, including New sciences on Dating, DNA, Geology (tectonic plates), etc, etc
ALL are consistent with or help affirm Evolution.
No fossils have been found the wrong start despite millions of finds.
Intermediate fossils/specie have been found, as eminently predictable by Evolution.

You're a clown with no debate at all.
`


----------



## Chuz Life

abu afak said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject is "theories" and the evidence to support them. Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do.
> Leftardz tend to gravitate towards theories with HUGE leaps of faith while they summarily dismiss "theories" that have substantially more evidence to support them. I find that to be very telling and my point has already been made.I don't need for you to discuss it any further,
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 160 YEARS and the greatest Scientific explosion in history, including New sciences on Dating, DNA, Geology (tectonic plates), etc, etc
> ALL are consistent with or help affirm Evolution.
> No fossils have been found the wrong start despite millions of finds.
> Intermediate fossils/specie have been found, as eminently predictable by Evolution.
> 
> You're a clown with no debate at all.
> `
Click to expand...



"Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."

Derp.


----------



## abu afak

Chuz Life said:


> *
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> Derp.*


*Yes, and I showed part of the overwhelming case for Evolution.
You made NO Case against it you DISHONEST CLOWN.
You had NO rebutttal, No meat at all

You're a 12 IQ turd who posts Nothing/Nonsense/NO content.

You should be banned for trolling your worthless impotent godist.

`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."


And what is the problem with that statement?


----------



## progressive hunter

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`




so I guess no one bothered to click the link and notice the OP failed to copy and paste the part of the article that said this is satire and not real,,,

simple minds are easily fooled


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> the part of the article that said this is satire


Right dumbass, it's making fun of you. Haha, you didn't even get that.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the problem with that statement?
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the problem with that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...

Answer the question. Don't hop into the thread and then sissy out of it.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the problem with that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question. Don't hop into the thread and then sissy out of it.
Click to expand...


Which question is it that are you blathering about?


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject is "theories" and the evidence to support them. Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do.
> Leftardz tend to gravitate towards theories with HUGE leaps of faith while they summarily dismiss "theories" that have substantially more evidence to support them. I find that to be very telling and my point has already been made.I don't need for you to discuss it any further,
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 160 YEARS and the greatest Scientific explosion in history, including New sciences on Dating, DNA, Geology (tectonic plates), etc, etc
> ALL are consistent with or help affirm Evolution.
> No fossils have been found the wrong start despite millions of finds.
> Intermediate fossils/specie have been found, as eminently predictable by Evolution.
> 
> You're a clown with no debate at all.
> `
Click to expand...



Dating?

Monkey boy would have better luck finding a banana then find a fat ugly girl to marry


----------



## progressive hunter

Chuz Life said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject is "theories" and the evidence to support them. Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do.
> Leftardz tend to gravitate towards theories with HUGE leaps of faith while they summarily dismiss "theories" that have substantially more evidence to support them. I find that to be very telling and my point has already been made.I don't need for you to discuss it any further,
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 160 YEARS and the greatest Scientific explosion in history, including New sciences on Dating, DNA, Geology (tectonic plates), etc, etc
> ALL are consistent with or help affirm Evolution.
> No fossils have been found the wrong start despite millions of finds.
> Intermediate fossils/specie have been found, as eminently predictable by Evolution.
> 
> You're a clown with no debate at all.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> Derp.
Click to expand...

its just that evolution has no evidence, just assumption and speculation that is easily disproven


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the problem with that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question. Don't hop into the thread and then sissy out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which question is it that are you blathering about?
Click to expand...

The question that you just quoted and then to which you responded without answering it. Try to follow.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And what is the problem with that statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer the question. Don't hop into the thread and then sissy out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which question is it that are you blathering about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question that you just quoted and then to which you responded without answering it. Try to follow.
Click to expand...


Sorry snowflake, I can't possibly know which question you are talking about.  So. You are going to have to be more specific or I will just conclude that you simply don't like my answer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Sorry snowflake, I can't possibly know which question you are talking about.


Then you are a goddam moron, because you just quoted it again for the third time in three posts.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry snowflake, I can't possibly know which question you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are a goddam moron, because you just quoted it again for the third time in three posts.
Click to expand...


Bwahahahaha!

Scroll back and read who *first* made the comment "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."

Then tell me who the "god damned moron" really is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."


And I ask again...what is the problem with that? You're not painting that as a strength, but rather as a weakness. Now, explain why. Or keep whining like a little baby, whatever...


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some theories have more evidence to support them than others do."
> 
> 
> 
> And I ask again...what is the problem with that? You're not painting that as a strength, but rather as a weakness. Now, explain why. Or keep whining like a little baby, whatever...
Click to expand...


Lol.

 I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact, precious.

You are so desperate for a point on anything that you are grasping at straws and seeing shit that isn't even there.

Further proof that YOU are the fucking moron that you are accusing me of being.

Thats a classic projection on your part.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,


Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


More leftarded projections.

Got anything else?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More leftarded projections.
> 
> Got anything else?
Click to expand...

Hmm, no, I'm spot on. You are a religious nutball, and you try to undermine science, when it suits you to do so. You don't seem to mind shitting all over science while banging away on your quantum mechanical device, though


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More leftarded projections.
> 
> Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, I'm spot on. You are a *religious* nutball, and you try to undermine science, when it suits you to do so. You don't seem to mind shitting all over science while banging away on your quantum mechanical device, though
Click to expand...


Lol.

As you and your leftarded ilk are the ones who "shit all over science" (especially when it comes to the biology) . . . You are projecting yet again. 

Also, I know how much it triggers you to know that not all your opponents are religious but that's your problem. Not mine. 

I have many a post here on USMB  and in many other forums to show my disdain for anyone who argues their views (especially against abortion) from a religious basis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More leftarded projections.
> 
> Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, I'm spot on. You are a *religious* nutball, and you try to undermine science, when it suits you to do so. You don't seem to mind shitting all over science while banging away on your quantum mechanical device, though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> As you and your leftarded ilk are the ones who "shit all over science" (especially when it comes to the biology) . . . You are projecting yet again.
> 
> Also, I know how much it triggers you to know that not all your opponents are religious but that's your problem. Not mine.
> 
> I have many a post here on USMB  and in many other forums to show my disdain for anyone who argues their views (especially against abortion) from a religious basis.
Click to expand...

And there yougo, whining like a little bitch again. Jesus man, if these topics are too much for you to Bear, then don't open the thread. Stick to your retro 1970s abortion debates, ya Sissy


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More leftarded projections.
> 
> Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, I'm spot on. You are a *religious* nutball, and you try to undermine science, when it suits you to do so. You don't seem to mind shitting all over science while banging away on your quantum mechanical device, though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> As you and your leftarded ilk are the ones who "shit all over science" (especially when it comes to the biology) . . . You are projecting yet again.
> 
> Also, I know how much it triggers you to know that not all your opponents are religious but that's your problem. Not mine.
> 
> I have many a post here on USMB  and in many other forums to show my disdain for anyone who argues their views (especially against abortion) from a religious basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there yougo, whining like a little bitch again. Jesus man, if these topics are too much for you to Bear, then don't open the thread. Stick to your retro 1970s abortion debates, ya Sissy
Click to expand...


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist ..



Oh by the way: Why do you never read what I say and mark everything what I say with "funny"? Because I am religious and you prefer automatically to hate religious people? Critics is not to defame other people. As well the Christian religion and natural science are not ideologies. Sure you have the right to hate blind - sure you have the right to be ignorant and to close all available eyes - but no one has only to believe in atheism/materialism who likes to be a scientist. People from all religions are able to be scientists too. But "supporters of an ideology science" are for sure not real scientists. And only because someone repeats continously to say nonsense about religion makes not better the nonsense the same person says about science.

_It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breaksfast. It keeps him young.   _
Konrad Lorenz


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak
The only way you reacted now was not to read other posts from me and to color them "funny". You are the ultimate winner.


----------



## LittleNipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't paint it as anything more than a statement of fact,
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, thats a loe. You are clearly trying to make a bigger point that science cannot be trusted. But you are clearly to big a sissy to follow through on it, because you know you will be forced to say some very stupid things that even embarrass yourself. You guys are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More leftarded projections.
> 
> Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmm, no, I'm spot on. You are a *religious* nutball, and you try to undermine science, when it suits you to do so. You don't seem to mind shitting all over science while banging away on your quantum mechanical device, though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.
> 
> As you and your leftarded ilk are the ones who "shit all over science" (especially when it comes to the biology) . . . You are projecting yet again.
> 
> Also, I know how much it triggers you to know that not all your opponents are religious but that's your problem. Not mine.
> 
> I have many a post here on USMB  and in many other forums to show my disdain for anyone who argues their views (especially against abortion) from a religious basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there yougo, whining like a little bitch again. *Jesus *man, if these topics are too much for you to Bear, then don't open the thread. Stick to your retro 1970s abortion debates, ya Sissy
Click to expand...

You are not a Christian --- according to your OWN admission. Therefore, you should refrain from using the name of the Lord in vain. It is insulting to those who believe in Jesus and does NOTHING to promote your point of view in any way...


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak 

There are reasons why normally no one tries to make a German angry, "genius".


----------



## evenflow1969

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


The earth and the moon both revolve around the sun buddy. As we travel around the sun the moon goes right with us.


----------



## abu afak

evenflow1969 said:


> *
> The earth and the moon both revolve around the sun buddy. As we travel around the sun the moon goes right with us.*


Whew!
I'm glad you filled us in.
I'm sure no one here knew that!
Have you considered a career in Astrophysics... or will you stick with Janitor?
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.



Trolling, trolling, trolling.  Get them doggies moving.  Rawhide.  <Crack sound of a bullwhip.>







The board is polluted with low brow internet atheist science believers.


----------



## zaangalewa

Oh by the way -  in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of  energy. Should such a point not explode? What is gravity doing in this case? It "widens" the space-time (indeed this process on its own is gravity), if I see it the right way. So perhaps a black hole is indeed exploding - but on the other side the explosions needs an eternity to reach us. That's only an idea in this context. In physics we never will be able to get any information what's really happening in a back hole, isn't it?

When we think about how we could be able to solve such problems, then we have nothing else than only our spiritual power, which tries to find the right creative intuition, which will bring us some steps forward in context with such problems. It needs an unbelieveable amount of wrong ideas until someone is able to interweave with the help of god lots of open ends of so many ideas to a new flying carpet, to a new theory in physics.

I hope physicists never will lose the virtue to be patient. One day somone will say "So easy?" .. "Is it really so damned easy?" ... And a short time later no one will understand any longer why the people in our time were so unbelievable stupid not to see, what's directly in front of the own eyes.

And by the way too: God is also directly in front of your eyes. Best greetings.


----------



## Confounding

james bond said:


> science believers.



LOL! 

Those ignorant science believers, am I right?


----------



## james bond

Confounding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> science believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Those ignorant science believers, am I right?
Click to expand...


You are quote mining me, i.e. taking things what I said out of context.  What I said was this board was polluted with "low brow internet atheist science believers."  Are you low brow, i.e. stupid AF ?  It looks like it to me.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.



That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.  Even the black or white hole has entropy or heat transfer.  Where do you get such bogus science?

The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
Click to expand...


That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.



> Even the black or white hole



White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.



> has entropy or heat transfer.



A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.



> Where do you get such bogus science?



Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?



> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity



If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.



> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).



It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.


----------



## sparky

sounds like some psuedo scientist needs to be thrown out a window to test their theory.....~S~


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black or white hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has entropy or heat transfer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get such bogus science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.
Click to expand...


Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.

Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.

It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black or white hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has entropy or heat transfer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get such bogus science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
Click to expand...


"The gods can do magic because I say so", is not an answer to anything.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> f you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.



Haha.  "size of a circle line," "you need 'infinity' to solve such a problem.  Are you referring to circumference of a circle?  I have no idea why you need "infinity."  I suspect you are referring to pi, but it's an irrational number.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> [
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.


Like You, Genepiss is stupid, and in the wrong order, even allowing for grotesque time-fudging.
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like You, Genepiss is stupid, and in the wrong order, even allowing for grotesque time-fudging.
> `
Click to expand...


newsflash it wasn't an historical or scientific book, the Babylons already had the 60 minute hour, 24 hour day, figured out solar eclipses..... it was written to say their is only one deity.....GOD


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like You, Genepiss is stupid, and in the wrong order, even allowing for grotesque time-fudging.
> `
Click to expand...


You never say anyhting, isn't it?


----------



## zaangalewa

bear513 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.  You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.  In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.  Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like You, Genepiss is stupid, and in the wrong order, even allowing for grotesque time-fudging.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> newsflash it wasn't an historical or scientific book, the Babylons already had the 60 minute hour, 24 hour day, figured out solar eclipses..... it was written to say their is only one deity.....GOD
Click to expand...


Real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octillions are the only systems of numbers we are able to use, if we like to stay in control about divisions by zero. Why 4 systems, why 1, 2, 4 or 8 "dimensions", why not 3 or 5 or any other number? Has this to do with the psychology of our species, with the nature of our concrete universe - or has this spiritual and/or philosophical reasons? What part of such a from of knowlegde is "natural" and what kind is "eternal"? Will another species find the same mathmatical structures - or completely different mathematical structures - or not any mathematics (and music) at all?


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

"Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.


----------



## abu afak

sparky said:


> sounds like some psuedo scientist needs to be thrown out a window to test their theory.....~S~


You never write more than one line you dishonest little Shltbag.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> newsflash it wasn't an historical or scientific book


Why are you telling him? He knows that. Its the young earth creationist, evolution- denying fools who don't know that.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much like evolution, Gravity has yet to be proven
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep this up and Trump will shut down the Government because he doesn't believe in Gravity or Evolution.  And until you agree with him, the Government will be shut down.
Click to expand...

                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                         !
                                                                                                        !
                                                                                        Oh Crap
                                                               such things as
                                              there is no
                             prove that
              ng this to
      Typi
I a


----------



## abu afak

`






`


----------



## miketx

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Everybody says gravity is only a theory until the first apple hits them on the head.


----------



## deanrd

Hilarious satire. But is it satire?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...fute-gravity-with-new-intellig-1819567984/amp

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.


----------



## Frannie

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`



Gravity itself is not a theory, it is obviously very real.  However what forms it and how is unknown as is how gravity applies to the Universe in general if at all.


----------



## Frannie

miketx said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody says gravity is only a theory until the first apple hits them on the head.
Click to expand...


Mike you are looking dapper today...………...Gave up cows for necks huh?


----------



## abu afak

Frannie said:


> Gravity itself is not a theory, it is obviously very real.  However what forms it and how is unknown as is how gravity applies to the Universe in general if at all.


You don't know what a Scientific Theory is.
It's not the same meaning/weight of 'theory' in common usage.
A Scientific Theory is the strongest statement science can make on nature.

I suggest you look up 'scientific theory' instead of using 'theory' as it's used daily .. mere speculation. "Hey I got an idea/take on that!"

ie, Gravity and Evolution are theories and Facts.
`


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity itself is not a theory, it is obviously very real.  However what forms it and how is unknown as is how gravity applies to the Universe in general if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what a Scientific Theory is.
> It's not the same meaning/weight of 'theory' in common usage.
> A Scientific Theory is the strongest statement science can make on nature.
> 
> I suggest you look up 'scientific theory' instead of using 'theory' as it's used daily .. mere speculation. "Hey I got an idea/take on that!"
> 
> ie, Gravity and Evolution are theories and Facts.
> `
Click to expand...



You dont know your ass from a hole in the ground sock, Newtons theory of gravity has long been dismissed as wrong, take a look how gravity behaves around black holes..


Oh but wait look who I am talking to one of the kings of narcissist on this board.

Btw prove evolution and gravity are fucking facts.


----------



## abu afak

bear513 said:


> You dont know your ass from a hole in the ground sock, Newtons theory of gravity has long been dismissed as wrong, take a look how gravity behaves around black holes..
> 
> 
> Oh but wait look who I am talking to one of the kings of narcissist on this board.
> 
> Btw prove evolution and gravity are fucking facts.


You "Prove" your stupidity hourly.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof", only math does.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time, which them become facts.
Most "facts" we use in daily language are not "Proved" either.

You are so G-D stupid you are undebatable.

_Noblesse oblige_.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Newtons theory of gravity has long been dismissed as wrong


Better stated: incomplete. Not "wrong". That's too unqualified.


----------



## rightwinger

If the theory of gravity is ever disproved, we will all float off into space


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is attempt to explain how it works.

Similarly, evolution and abiogenesis are facts. The theories of each attempt to explain how they work.


----------



## rightwinger

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Gravity is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is attempt to explain how it works.
> 
> Similarly, evolution and abiogenesis are facts. The theories of each attempt to explain how they work.



Things drop to earth because God makes them


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> Things drop to earth because God makes them


That might be true. Maybe god designed gravity to be as it is.


----------



## rightwinger

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things drop to earth because God makes them
> 
> 
> 
> That might be true. Maybe god designed gravity to be as it is.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me?

God does not need gravity....he is freaking GOD


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things drop to earth because God makes them
> 
> 
> 
> That might be true. Maybe god designed gravity to be as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> God does not need gravity....he is freaking GOD
Click to expand...

Not kidding. I can point at anything and say,'"god did it!", and i can never be wrong. (Which also means i can never be right)


----------



## Frannie

abu afak said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity itself is not a theory, it is obviously very real.  However what forms it and how is unknown as is how gravity applies to the Universe in general if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what a Scientific Theory is.
> It's not the same meaning/weight of 'theory' in common usage.
> A Scientific Theory is the strongest statement science can make on nature.
> 
> I suggest you look up 'scientific theory' instead of using 'theory' as it's used daily .. mere speculation. "Hey I got an idea/take on that!"
> 
> ie, Gravity and Evolution are theories and Facts.
> `
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling about, seriously what does this mean

"A Scientific Theory is the strongest statement science can make on nature."

I hate to break it to you but there are facts in nature, which means that science does recognize facts.

I suggest you look up more words little boy


----------



## Frannie

abu afak said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know your ass from a hole in the ground sock, Newtons theory of gravity has long been dismissed as wrong, take a look how gravity behaves around black holes..
> 
> 
> Oh but wait look who I am talking to one of the kings of narcissist on this board.
> 
> Btw prove evolution and gravity are fucking facts.
> 
> 
> 
> You "Prove" your stupidity hourly.
> 
> Science doesn't deal in "Proof", only math does.
> Science deals in Theories affirmed over time, which them become facts.
> Most "facts" we use in daily language are not "Proved" either.
> 
> You are so G-D stupid you are undebatable.
> 
> _Noblesse oblige_.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

If I throw a softball sized hunk of granite at your head from 20 feet away, and it hits your skull your head will crack and the granite will not.

That is a fact kid, now get off your moms computer


----------



## rightwinger

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things drop to earth because God makes them
> 
> 
> 
> That might be true. Maybe god designed gravity to be as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> God does not need gravity....he is freaking GOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not kidding. I can point at anything and say,'"god did it!", and i can never be wrong. (Which also means i can never be right)
Click to expand...

Gravity is Gods gift to mankind

If he decides to take it away, we are in big trouble.  We better not piss him off


----------



## abu afak

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak
> 
> "Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.


You never have the correct English expression for anything.

Hey Quesadilla!
Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
`


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak
> 
> "Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.
> 
> 
> 
> You never have the correct English expression for anything.
> 
> Hey Quesadilla!
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> `
Click to expand...


?


----------



## RandomPoster

"I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. "

  To be fair, I haven't heard that argument since High School and I think its prevalence is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## abu afak

RandomPoster said:


> "I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. "
> To be fair, I haven't heard that argument since High School and I think its prevalence is greatly exaggerated.


Then you are BLIND.
I's a Fallacy posted in several current running threads. here.
`


----------



## Flash

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`




Actually the sun is pulling the moon away from the earth.  About an inch a year.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


We get way too involved in definitions . But it’s really quite simple Idea but has to be adhered to in keeping deniers at hand and less confused. Gravity exist. It is factual. But, describing how it works and relates to , is totally theoretical. On earth and in close distances, we look at gravity in in one way, but as a universal force over great distances it’s looked apt Differently and  no different Describing  many aspects Of ideas  in science.    It’s the same for time, evolution


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black or white hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has entropy or heat transfer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get such bogus science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.
Click to expand...


No. I'm able to make mistakes and to trust in wrong things or ideas for example - but nothing what I say bases on "imaginery" science. One truth - one science. My science is written in school books and is taught in universities.



> You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.



Who ever was in the past? Never anyone, isn't it?

_The present of the present is attention, the present of the past is memory, and the present of the future is expectation._
*Augustinus*




> In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.



Why do you try to tell me bullshit?

0x1=0; 0x2=0
=> 0x1= 0x2
=> (0x1)/0=(0x2)/0
=> (0/0)x1=(0/0)x2
=>1=2



> It is evidence for God or ∞.



¿? ... I have not any idea what you try to say here.



> Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.



Multiverses are an idea of physicists - and the only problem of this idea is to find an experiment in this context. Most people are convinced an experiment (or observation) in this context is impossible. I guess this is true - nevertheless from a Christian point of view multiveres are absolutelly not any problem - whether they have a physical connection to our world or not. Love knows not any physical borders. Not in space, not in time and not in any other nowhere or anywhere.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black or white hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has entropy or heat transfer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get such bogus science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'm able to make mistakes and to trust in wrong things or ideas for example - but nothing what I say bases on "imaginery" science. One truth - one science. My science is written in school books and is taught in universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who ever was in the past? Never anyone, isn't it?
> 
> _The present of the present is attention, the present of the past is memory, and the present of the future is expectation._
> *Augustinus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you try to tell me bullshit?
> 
> 0x1=0; 0x2=0
> => 0x1= 0x2
> => (0x1)/0=(0x2)/0
> => (0/0)x1=(0/0)x2
> =>1=2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿? ... I have not any idea what you try to say here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiverses are an idea of physicists - and the only problem of this idea is to find an experiment in this context. Most people are convinced an experiment (or observation) in this context is impossible. I guess this is true - nevertheless from a Christian point of view multiveres are absolutelly not any problem - whether they have a physical connection to our world or not. Love knows not any physical borders. Not in space, not in time and not in any other nowhere or anywhere.
Click to expand...

There's no telling how many other universe are filled with radiation and nothing more.  From a scientific viewpoint, it can be argued that our universe was a mistake; that instead of being created with one billion matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles, it was created with one billion and one matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles.

1,000,000,001 versus 1,000,000,000


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak
> 
> "Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.
> 
> 
> 
> You never have the correct English expression for anything.
> 
> Hey Quesadilla!
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...

He was bumping the OP he created to the top of the list and used your 1 year old post to do it.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak
> 
> "Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.
> 
> 
> 
> You never have the correct English expression for anything.
> 
> Hey Quesadilla!
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> `
Click to expand...

Sorry, it can’t be both. It’s not rocket science. If a term has the word theory after it, it’s a theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Sorry, it can’t be both.


Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here.  

Can it be tested?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
Click to expand...

Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
Click to expand...

Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
Click to expand...

How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
Click to expand...

You do realize that every time you avoid answering the question honestly that all you are doing is giving weight and importance to it, right?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
Click to expand...

Why are you afraid of answering the question honestly?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
Click to expand...

So many questions! May i suggest you go ask an expert?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You do realize that every time you avoid answering the question honestly that all you are doing is giving weight and importance to it, right?


Hmm, no, that's all nonsense. And i did answer it honestly anyway. No, i am quite confident that no amount of religious goober equivocation will give any more weight or legitimacy to evolution deniers. You really need to check the scoreboard.


----------



## miketx

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


You're right, this is all newton invented.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Why are you afraid of answering the question honestly?


I was polite enough to answer your childlike question very honestly. Those things i said are tests of the theory of evolution. When you act like this, the best way to embarrass you is just to let you talk. Which i will now do.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that every time you avoid answering the question honestly that all you are doing is giving weight and importance to it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, no, that's all nonsense. And i did answer it honestly anyway. No, i am quite confident that no amount of religious goober equivocation will give any more weight or legitimacy to evolution deniers. You really need to check the scoreboard.
Click to expand...

I don't deny evolution.  But even I know the nature of evolution does not lend itself to testing.  The fact that you can't admit this is proof you aren't secure in your beliefs.


----------



## Dick Foster

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


You'd have exactly one nickle. Now if you had a nickle for each one, you might end up with some teal money.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many questions! May i suggest you go ask an expert?
Click to expand...

I like asking the hard questions.  The responses are revealing.  

So does it trouble you that the theory of evolution can't be tested like say the theory of relativity?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of answering the question honestly?
> 
> 
> 
> I was polite enough to answer your childlike question very honestly. Those things i said are tests of the theory of evolution. When you act like this, the best way to embarrass you is just to let you talk. Which i will now do.
Click to expand...

But you didn't answer the question honestly.  

Here's another one that may give you problems.

Can predictions be made using the theory of evolution to validate the theory of evolution?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> childlike question


Childlike question?  Thanks for the compliment.  All questions should be asked like a child would ask them.  Just like all answers should be made so that a child can understand them.  Einstein said that if you can't explain something such that a small child can understand it then maybe you don't understand it yourself.  Einstein was a smart dude.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dick Foster said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have exactly one nickle. Now if you had a nickle for each one, you might end up with some teal money.
Click to expand...

Ha! That is grammar nazi gold, right there.


----------



## ding

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Science can't measure evolution like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be tested like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be replicated in a lab.  There are no experiments that can be performed.  

It's sort of like climate science in that regard.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way - in every "center" of a black hole (indeed it is the black hole) is a point with an infinite density of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is impossible due to entropy in the material world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we have problems with this imagination. Nevertheless the univierse once started also in such a point. Before was not before but only nothing (because the law of the growing entropy says so). The universe was not - nothing was - then it was. Christians believe since about 1700 years "God made everythting out of nothing." If a Christian is not doing so, then this is unimportant. But we found no better explanation until today. The quality of this clear declaration is the same as in physics - but in physics the concrete quantities and mathematical structures are much more complex, than the philosophy behind this thought. But there seems not to exist a real contradiction. And even if someone will find out the universe started in another way this principle becomes not stupid - it is an orientation mark. If someone thinks the way is in another direction, then this one has to find good new arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black or white hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White holes are an idea. Black holes are reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has entropy or heat transfer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A black hole has what inside? "Entropy" a "heat transfer"? How do you know? I made very clear what I said is only an idea. I used it for a principle lack of knowledge (we get not any information from behind of the event horizon). I used this example to show what we do in case we find such a lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get such bogus science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief. How are you able to take yourselve serios?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The closest we can get to infinity is having countless number of items.  There is no infinity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you like to find out what's the size of a circle line you need  "infintiy" to solve such a problem. It are existing for example countably infinites - but also infinites, which are not countably. The number of all decimals is for example a not countably infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or else one has to divide by zero which is impossible (except for God as creator).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is also for god "impossible" to divide by zero. This operation is just simple not defined because it gives results "without logic". But god is logos: He speaks not only the timeless creative word - he is the timeless creative spirit on his own. Tell a mathematician _"to divide by zero will bring you in a hell"_ and he will laugh loud and agree. Sure exists god also in every hell and will lead out of hell - but god leads not into a hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of what you say is based on your imaginary science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I'm able to make mistakes and to trust in wrong things or ideas for example - but nothing what I say bases on "imaginery" science. One truth - one science. My science is written in school books and is taught in universities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think people of today are better able to explain the past than one who was there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who ever was in the past? Never anyone, isn't it?
> 
> _The present of the present is attention, the present of the past is memory, and the present of the future is expectation._
> *Augustinus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, he explained so people in ancient times would understand as would people of today.
> 
> Dividing by zero does not give results that are without logic.  For example 2/0 = n.  It means n x 0 = 2.    Any elementary school pupil who has learned division can tell you this.  There is no n multiplied by zero will give you 2.  I just used 2 as an example.  It could be any number.  What it means is only a creator or God can make it work as they can create something from nothing and it adds up to 2.  QED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you try to tell me bullshit?
> 
> 0x1=0; 0x2=0
> => 0x1= 0x2
> => (0x1)/0=(0x2)/0
> => (0/0)x1=(0/0)x2
> =>1=2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is evidence for God or ∞.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ¿? ... I have not any idea what you try to say here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, atheist science makes up imaginary stuff like infinite multiverses and infinite singularity that defy the laws of physics and you believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiverses are an idea of physicists - and the only problem of this idea is to find an experiment in this context. Most people are convinced an experiment (or observation) in this context is impossible. I guess this is true - nevertheless from a Christian point of view multiveres are absolutelly not any problem - whether they have a physical connection to our world or not. Love knows not any physical borders. Not in space, not in time and not in any other nowhere or anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no telling how many other universe are filled with radiation and nothing more.  From a scientific viewpoint, it can be argued that our universe was a mistake; that instead of being created with one billion matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles, it was created with one billion and one matter particles per every one billion anti-matter particles.
> 
> 1,000,000,001 versus 1,000,000,000
Click to expand...


A part of this was explained from the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. Key words are "baryogenesis", "Sakharov condition". (German: "Baryogenese", "Sacharow Kriterien").

Sacharow - ah sorry:  Sakharov - was by the way a Nobel price winner. He was the only physicist who ever wan the Nobel price ... for peace.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
Click to expand...


Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.

And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.

And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...


----------



## zaangalewa

Dagosa said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak
> 
> "Funny" was now only that I used a wrong word. "Octillions" instead of the german word "Oktonionen" - but I'm not able to find in the moment the correct English word for this expression. I guess it's quite simple "Octonions" - for sure it is not "Octilliions" - but that's not very important.
> 
> 
> 
> You never have the correct English expression for anything.
> 
> Hey Quesadilla!
> Evolution is a Theory and a Fact.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both. It’s not rocket science. If a term has the word theory after it, it’s a theory.
Click to expand...


Biological evolution is the fact - the theory of evolution is the explanation for this fact.

The theory of evolution says for example that Gustavo - the tree in the little forest near your home - and you have a common ancestors. Let me call her Cindererella. So all living structures on palnet Earth are brothers and sisters.

And what said Saint Francis?

If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
*Saint Francis*


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.
> 
> Science can't measure evolution like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be tested like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be replicated in a lab.  There are no experiments that can be performed.
> 
> It's sort of like climate science in that regard.


You do like to make stuff up. We can speed up the evolutionary process with small micro organism and study how they evolve. Geeze , how do you think we develop vaccines that remain functional before  a bacteria or disease evolves into something untreatable . The dna mechanism for evolution is studied in labs all over the world.


----------



## Dagosa

zaangalewa said:


> you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
> *Saint Francis*


Sounds like Oprah


----------



## zaangalewa

Dagosa said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
> *Saint Francis*
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Oprah
Click to expand...



And what means this? I know meanhwile that Mrs. Oprah Winfrey is very famous in the USA - but I don't know why and what you understand by saying this. What means this "argument"?


_St. Francis of Assisi taught me that there is a wound in the Creation and that the greatest use we could make of our lives was to ask to be made a healer of it._
*Alan Paton*


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
Click to expand...

Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.
> 
> Science can't measure evolution like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be tested like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be replicated in a lab.  There are no experiments that can be performed.
> 
> It's sort of like climate science in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> You do like to make stuff up. We can speed up the evolutionary process with small micro organism and study how they evolve. Geeze , how do you think we develop vaccines that remain functional before  a bacteria or disease evolves into something untreatable . The dna mechanism for evolution is studied in labs all over the world.
Click to expand...

Not really applicable for the origin of new species. But thanks for showing your insecurity.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
Click to expand...


And now say this to god and listen what he says.



_The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
Saint Francis


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Why don’t you look up the definition of science?


----------



## Dagosa

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
Click to expand...

Thousands of children die very day, and many pray for help. God has yet to answer simple prays.


----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.
> 
> Science can't measure evolution like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be tested like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be replicated in a lab.  There are no experiments that can be performed.
> 
> It's sort of like climate science in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> You do like to make stuff up. We can speed up the evolutionary process with small micro organism and study how they evolve. Geeze , how do you think we develop vaccines that remain functional before  a bacteria or disease evolves into something untreatable . The dna mechanism for evolution is studied in labs all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really applicable for the origin of new species. But thanks for showing your insecurity.
Click to expand...

Pretty shitty definition. Get that from a cereal box ! Try again from a real dictionary.


----------



## Dagosa

zaangalewa said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
> *Saint Francis*
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Oprah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oprah is a sucker for every charlatan who comes down the pike preaching  woo woo. Woo woo, is made up shit with a few science sounding words to impress the gullible.
> 
> 
> And what means this? I know meanhwile that Mrs. Oprah Winfrey is very famous in the USA - but I don't know why and what you understand by saying this. What means this "argument"?
> 
> 
> _St. Francis of Assisi taught me that there is a wound in the Creation and that the greatest use we could make of our lives was to ask to be made a healer of it._
> *Alan Paton*
Click to expand...

Oprah is a sucker for every charlatan who comes down the pike preaching  woo woo. Woo woo, is made up shit with a few science sounding words to impress the gullible.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don’t you look up the definition of science?
Click to expand...

Don't need to.  Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

How will knowing that help answer the question I asked?


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.
> 
> Science can't measure evolution like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be tested like other phenomenon.  Evolution can't be replicated in a lab.  There are no experiments that can be performed.
> 
> It's sort of like climate science in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> You do like to make stuff up. We can speed up the evolutionary process with small micro organism and study how they evolve. Geeze , how do you think we develop vaccines that remain functional before  a bacteria or disease evolves into something untreatable . The dna mechanism for evolution is studied in labs all over the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really applicable for the origin of new species. But thanks for showing your insecurity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty shitty definition. Get that from a cereal box ! Try again from a real dictionary.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel better to see it that way, sure.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousands of children die very day, and many pray for help. God has yet to answer simple prays.
Click to expand...

So prayer is for getting things?


----------



## ding

When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.  ~William James


----------



## ding




----------



## Dagosa

ding said:


> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousands of children die very day, and many pray for help. God has yet to answer simple prays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So prayer is for getting things?
Click to expand...

It it works for you.


----------



## ding

Dagosa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousands of children die very day, and many pray for help. God has yet to answer simple prays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So prayer is for getting things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It it works for you.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.  I'm not the one who believes that.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Interesting question.


----------



## zaangalewa

Dagosa said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thousands of children die very day, and many pray for help. God has yet to answer simple prays.
Click to expand...


Do you know what most people forget to tell Jesus? A good joke! He loves it to laugh.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dagosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, it can’t be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here.
> 
> Can it be tested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, i covered that. Else it would not be a scientific theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have missed it.  How can evolution be tested?  Is there a controlled experiment that can be performed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. It is tested every time we find a fossil, or conduct a mitochondrial dna study, to name two examples. So yeah, you missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that a test?  How is that an experiment?  Is there a test that you can perform to prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay : Let's makle an experiment. Show at your hand.
> 
> And now show at the paw of your dog, the paw of your cat - and if your cat has a foot in the mouth free your lovebird and bring it back to the save cage. Now look at at paws of an ape. And look at your own paws again.
> 
> And now ask yourselve how it is possible that the paw of an ape is more similar to your paw than any other paw. ... And no ... do not tell me the result ... Tell god your result ... and if he laughs loud, because you try to tell him a lie or nonsense then try another story, which is maybe more true. ...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really the kind of experiment I was thinking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now say this to god and listen what he says.
> 
> 
> 
> _The depth of the human soul contains unfathomable powers, because God himself dwells in it._
> Saint Francis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting question.
Click to expand...

I thought so.  I wanted to see if you were really going to speak for God.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> ... I thought so.  I wanted to see if you were really going to speak for God.



Ding!, you are an anti-Christian and an idiot. Says this god to you or I?


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I thought so.  I wanted to see if you were really going to speak for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding!, you are an anti-Christian and an idiot. Says this god to you or I?
Click to expand...

How am I anti-Christian exactly?


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I thought so.  I wanted to see if you were really going to speak for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ding!, you are an anti-Christian and an idiot. Says this god to you or I?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I anti-Christian exactly?
Click to expand...


no comment


----------



## ding

That's what I thought.


----------



## Quasar44

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Gravity is as fact as you breath in oxygen to stay alive
Go jump off a mountain and test it


----------



## abu afak

Evolution is also a fact.
Go dig up millions of fossils, find them in the right age layers (never contradicting ones), and able to date those layers (When Isotopic dating comes along) , and as they accumulate be able to successfully predict and then find intermediate species.
and the when DNA comes along confirm with regression analysis of such.
160 Years withOUT Contradiction..
*Evolution, like Gravity is a theory AND a FACT.* (see the OP)
You are just too Ignorant to know the facts and the terminology.
Gameover.


`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Quasar44 said:


> Gravity is as fact as you breath in oxygen to stay alive
> Go jump off a mountain and test it


Launch a satellite into Earth orbit and test it. Unless you want your satellite to come crashing to earth, you will need gravitational theory to keep it there.


----------



## Quasar44

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> *
> Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
> 
> “This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
> 
> First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
> 
> The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
> [...... Big snip........]
> It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
> 
> Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
> 
> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Gravity is as fact as anything
Wow are you an ignoramus


----------



## Quasar44

Go jump off a ladder . Please don’t 
You’re falling down to the center of the earth but are stopped by the ground 
 Gravity is simply massive dents in time /space by the mass of celestial bodies


----------



## abu afak

Quasar44 said:


> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus


Gravity and Evolution are BOTH facts and Theories.
I suggest you look up the definition of "Scientific Theory," not just 'theory.'
Ok Male Bimbo?
`


----------



## Quasar44

abu afak said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity and Evolution are BOTH facts and Theories.
> I suggest you look up the definition of "Scientific Theory," not just 'theory.'
> Ok Male Bimbo?
> `
Click to expand...

It’s a fact 
What century are you living in


----------



## abu afak

Quasar44 said:


> It’s a fact
> What century are you living in


Things can be facts AND theories.
What 2-digit IQ world do you live in.
I assumed you at least looked up 'scientific theory' and got self-porked, jackass.
Gameover braindead
`


----------



## Quasar44

abu afak said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a fact
> What century are you living in
> 
> 
> 
> Things can be facts AND theories.
> What 2-digit IQ world do you live in.
> I assumed you at least looked up 'scientific theory' and got self-porked, jackass.
> Gameover braindead
> `
Click to expand...

Theory is fact in modern terms 
Hypothesis is not
Einstein’s General Relatively solved all the details of gravity


----------



## abu afak

Quasar44 said:


> Theory is fact in modern terms
> Hypothesis is not
> Einstein’s General Relatively solved all the details of gravity


There are no "Hypotheses" on the table.
Irrelevant drivel.





__





						Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist
					

I frequently get emails wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore. To try this, you will need: - an object to drop. OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get...




					thehappyscientist.com
				



" So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, 
and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Quasar44 said:


> Einstein’s General Relatively solved all the details of gravity


Not quite yet.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity and Evolution are BOTH facts and Theories.
> I suggest you look up the definition of "Scientific Theory," not just 'theory.'
> Ok Male Bimbo?
> `
Click to expand...


Stop trying to act like you know science.

Evolution is a lie except for natural selection which creation science has.  Gravity has not been explained to satisfaction, but has the law of gravity or Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Gravity is also a theory and not a fact.  You are wrong again.   The energy associated with the gravitational force is negative, while the energy associated with most ordinary objects (baseballs, cars, elevators, you, etc.) is positive. It is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel, resulting in zero net energy.


----------



## Quasar44

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity and Evolution are BOTH facts and Theories.
> I suggest you look up the definition of "Scientific Theory," not just 'theory.'
> Ok Male Bimbo?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to act like you know science.
> 
> Evolution is a lie except for natural selection which creation science has.  Gravity has not been explained to satisfaction, but has the law of gravity or Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Gravity is also a theory and not a fact.  You are wrong again.   The energy associated with the gravitational force is negative, while the energy associated with most ordinary objects (baseballs, cars, elevators, you, etc.) is positive. It is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel, resulting in zero net energy.
Click to expand...

You are a Science illiterate !!!


----------



## LittleNipper

Obviously, we should ALL know that there is this force that holds us on this planet; HOWEVER, how this occurs and why it happens is still very much simply a theory. And a theory is pretty much a philosophical exercise that is held by some religiously and by others indifferently. 

Individuality of every living thing goes without saying; however, the belief that biological organisms have progressively become less specialized an more complexity is not provable. Adaptability does not prove advancement.


----------



## Quasar44

You 4th grade drop out


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Evolution and gravity are both facts. Theories are about searching for what is true regarding their effects and how they work in the universe.

The overall Theory of Gravity attempts to use physical laws to explain the observations. We can now safely say that the fundamental idea of General Relativity is _true._ 

The overall Theory of Evolution attempts to use physical laws to explain the observations. We can now safely say the fundamental idea of the Theory of Evolution is _true._


----------



## Quasar44

Gravity is the warped fabric of space and time


----------



## ReinyDays

Sorry I'm late for dinner ... so maybe this has been covered already ...

The OP should probably learn the theory of gravity before they condemn it ... his understanding of tidal forces is so completely backwards as to be laughable ...

Gravity is a pseudo force ... an apparition of our frame-of-reference ... the Moon moves in a perfectly straight line, and does not curve in it's motion through space ... the amount of evidence for this fact is overwhelming and undeniable ... we proved this 100 years ago, and demonstrated it 200 years ago ... the OP's fixation on 18th Century science is best dismissed ... many many folks one hell of a lot smarter than all of us put together figured this out ... but if the OP can take Wassermann/Einstein (1915) and point to where the error is, I'd be happy to reconsider, and I promise not to rush into publication and grab that Nobel Prize for myself ...

TimeSpace is a non-Euclidean manifold ... which is fancy-pants scienticy lingo for the fact that it is _space_ that is curved ... thus the appearance of orbits ... strictly a matter of our frame-of-reference here on Earth ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Sorry I'm late for dinner ... so maybe this has been covered already ...
> 
> The OP should probably learn the theory of gravity before they condemn it ... his understanding of tidal forces is so completely backwards as to be laughable ...
> 
> Gravity is a pseudo force ... an apparition of our frame-of-reference ... the Moon moves in a perfectly straight line, and does not curve in it's motion through space ... the amount of evidence for this fact is overwhelming and undeniable ... we proved this 100 years ago, and demonstrated it 200 years ago ... the OP's fixation on 18th Century science is best dismissed ... many many folks one hell of a lot smarter than all of us put together figured this out ... but if the OP can take Wassermann/Einstein (1915) and point to where the error is, I'd be happy to reconsider, and I promise not to rush into publication and grab that Nobel Prize for myself ...
> 
> TimeSpace is a non-Euclidean manifold ... which is fancy-pants scienticy lingo for the fact that it is _space_ that is curved ... thus the appearance of orbits ... strictly a matter of our frame-of-reference here on Earth ...


And yet the search for the particles that impart the force of gravity continues (gravitons), as well as the debate over their existence.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet the search for the particles that impart the force of gravity continues (gravitons), as well as the debate over their existence.



Pseudo particles ... we can treat them as particles as long as we remember they aren't actual particles ... I think it's too early to flush the entirety of QM down the toilet ... we will someday, but _after_ we divine Universal Field Theory ... the problem is lazy ass physicists milking the time clock ... "we'll get it someday, but today we need a raise" ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Pseudo particles ... we can treat them as particles as long as we remember they aren't actual particles


That is one facet of the debate. And it is not settled, so your confidence is...curious. No, they may very well be actual "particles", as real as any other.


----------



## Dagosa

Quasar44 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is as fact as you breath in oxygen to stay alive
> Go jump off a mountain and test it
Click to expand...

This is a continual silly debate. Gravity, like evolution occurs and the EVIDENCE of each  is observable. These are observable facts. How and why they occur along with other corollaries, is all theory.

Newton had his laws of gravity on the macro level but no where did he attempt To explain why it happens and it’s affects on other observations. That’s where theory comes in.

for example, under certain conditions, liquid under gravitational  free fall from behaves differently in a vacuum then in atmosphere. These are observable facts. In theory, molten metal should behave similarly. We used this theory to develope near perfect cylindrical ball bearings for inertia guidance systems which was a huge military advantage. But it’s still a theoretical Understanding because on another level, even that isn’t entirely true.


too many if use are confused by high school geometry where we in a closed system proving  theorems. Math is a language use EVERYWHERE. But technically, It’s not science anymore then the English language is. Don’t confuse the two.  Math may be the language of science, but theorems are not theories.
The why and how is THEORY. The observed evidence of a topic are facts. Don't confuse the two.


----------



## 22lcidw

There are reasons for gravity. Is the rotation of something on an individual on the cause of gravity? Or part of the cause?  The Earth rotates. We see plans for space craft/stations that rotate and cause gravity.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is one facet of the debate. And it is not settled, so your confidence is...curious. No, they may very well be actual "particles", as real as any other.



The Higgs boson is the last of the elementary particles to be discovered ... using the Standard Model ... there may well be no more ... keep in mind the Standard Model has proven to be robust again and again and again ... nothing we've observed in the universe seems to contradict it's validity ... when looking for the Higgs boson, we knew exact what to expect, and where to expect it ... it's properties, it's behaviors, it's qualities ... all these things were (correctly) predicted by the Standard Model ...

We will need a new model of these elementary particles ... something that gives us the 17 we have in hand plus room for more ... gravitons, dark matter, pheons, etc etc etc ... otherwise we're just randomly looking hoping to catch sight of something the Standard Model doesn't predict ... perhaps we don't need this information, but it sure would be a BIG help when building a machine to detect them ... 

Does this explain my confidence? ... sometimes there is only so much to learn, and then there's no more to learn after that ... sometimes ...


----------



## Dagosa

22lcidw said:


> There are reasons for gravity. Is the rotation of something on an individual on the cause of gravity? Or part of the cause?  The Earth rotates. We see plans for space craft/stations that rotate and cause gravity.


Actually the rotation of earth produces centripetal force which reduces gravity. Gravity is mass  related And objects with greater mass have greater gravity. The distance from an object decrease it’s gravity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is one facet of the debate. And it is not settled, so your confidence is...curious. No, they may very well be actual "particles", as real as any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Higgs boson is the last of the elementary particles to be discovered ... using the Standard Model ... there may well be no more ... keep in mind the Standard Model has proven to be robust again and again and again ... nothing we've observed in the universe seems to contradict it's validity ... when looking for the Higgs boson, we knew exact what to expect, and where to expect it ... it's properties, it's behaviors, it's qualities ... all these things were (correctly) predicted by the Standard Model ...
> 
> We will need a new model of these elementary particles ... something that gives us the 17 we have in hand plus room for more ... gravitons, dark matter, pheons, etc etc etc ... otherwise we're just randomly looking hoping to catch sight of something the Standard Model doesn't predict ... perhaps we don't need this information, but it sure would be a BIG help when building a machine to detect them ...
> 
> Does this explain my confidence? ... sometimes there is only so much to learn, and then there's no more to learn after that ... sometimes ...
Click to expand...

It does. And you may be exactly right.


----------



## ReinyDays

Dagosa said:


> Actually the rotation of earth produces centripetal force which reduces gravity. Gravity is mass  related And objects with greater mass have greater gravity. The distance from an object decrease it’s gravity.



For the record ... the dust and gases that collapsed into the Earth was rotating ... and the Earth has continued to rotate ever since ... remember: we need a torque to change angular momentum ... no torque, no change in momentum ...

Gravity is our centripetal force ... centripetal means "pointed towards the center" ... you mean _*centrifugal*_ force, an apparition of our rotating frame-of-reference ... No, weigh yourself at the equator, maximum centrifugal force ... weigh yourself at the pole, no centrifugal force ... see, exactly the same ... 

Find the force that describes your daily motion around the Earth's axis ... now subtract that from gravity ... yeah, that leaves you the hydrostatic force ... cute eh? ...


----------



## Dagosa

ReinyDays said:


> No, weigh yourself at the equator, maximum centrifugal force ... weigh yourself at the pole, no centrifugal force ... see, exactly the same ...


Due  to the rotation of the earth, we weigh about 1% less at the equator then at the pole.


----------



## ReinyDays

Dagosa said:


> Due  to the rotation of the earth, we weigh about 1% less at the equator then at the pole.



Did you do the vector addition I asked you to? ... see, no centrifugal forces ...


----------



## james bond

Quasar44 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus
> 
> 
> 
> Gravity and Evolution are BOTH facts and Theories.
> I suggest you look up the definition of "Scientific Theory," not just 'theory.'
> Ok Male Bimbo?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to act like you know science.
> 
> Evolution is a lie except for natural selection which creation science has.  Gravity has not been explained to satisfaction, but has the law of gravity or Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Gravity is also a theory and not a fact.  You are wrong again.   The energy associated with the gravitational force is negative, while the energy associated with most ordinary objects (baseballs, cars, elevators, you, etc.) is positive. It is possible for these positive and negative energies to cancel, resulting in zero net energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a Science illiterate !!!
Click to expand...


Didn't I just say stop acting like you know science?  It's embarrassing.  I just put you to shame and you have no reply, but ad hominem.  It means you lost the argument.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evolution and gravity are both facts.



I stopped reading right there.  Many scientists and science-minded people would lol, think you know very little, are wrong and move on.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and gravity are both facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading right there.  Many scientists and science-minded people would lol, think you know very little, are wrong and move on.
Click to expand...


Ah ... But you think he knows a lot, are right, and hang on his every comment? ...


----------



## Dagosa

Quasar44 said:


> Gravity is simply massive dents in time /space by the mass of celestial bodies


Gravity applies to all objects with mass, not just celestial bodies. That it’s a dent in time/space is a theory and one way of looking at gravity. Most of us who use that theory still don’t know what the fk it means. Not many of us do. Really, saying an explanation is only a theory doesn’t diminish its usefulness . After all, we are swamped in nukes throughout the world that were all built based upon theory, just like your cellphones, automobiles and vaccines. The idea that just because theories are subject to change  aren’t useful is bogus. That’s why the science illiterate crowd that keeps diminishing theoretical knowledge as useless are really making shit up. At least science theories are testable and if consistent are useful.

Can’t say that about religion or even worse, the “common sense “ crowd.


----------



## beautress

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


So gravity is a false theory? <burp!>


----------



## Dagosa

beautress said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`
> 
> 
> 
> So gravity is a false theory? <burp!>
Click to expand...

Theory is neither absolutely false nor true. They are useful ways of explaining phenomenon to a degree of certainty that exist around us making it better for mankind. Really, if we thought Newtonian physics was the only way of looking at things, we wouldn’t have cell phone’s radiation therapy  and a bunch of “products.”


----------



## Quasar44

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and gravity are both facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading right there.  Many scientists and science-minded people would lol, think you know very little, are wrong and move on.
Click to expand...

You’re a science illiterate dummy
Go back to the 4th grade


----------



## Quasar44

This science section is not worth my time 
Too many ignoramuses and religious nuts


----------



## james bond

Quasar44 said:


> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade





Quasar44 said:


> This science section is not worth my time



The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
Click to expand...

^^

Thinks AGW and evolution are hoaxes


----------



## Quasar44

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> Thinks AGW and evolution are hoaxes
Click to expand...

Evolution is beyond facts
You have the DNA, bones , genetical evidence that is absolute and undeniable 
 If you want to learn more ..I can recommend you 2 excellent and short books that will show you the truth


----------



## Quasar44

Why are conservatives such dimwits with science ??
 I am a Trump supporter and I also follow science


----------



## Quasar44

james bond said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
Click to expand...

You are uneducated and very ignorant guy!!
 You are fully entitled to your views


----------



## Quasar44

I am not a Scientist but I read books written by them and I listen to them on YouTube


----------



## Quasar44

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> Thinks AGW and evolution are hoaxes
Click to expand...

 For Global Warning : we’re seeing “ very mild temp spikes “; this is nothing to be alarmed about , yet . This is 100 percent due to man but it’s nothing to take seriously ...yet


----------



## Crepitus

ReinyDays said:


> , weigh yourself at the equator, maximum centrifugal force ... weigh yourself at the pole, no centrifugal force ... see, exactly the same ...


I'm afraid you are incorrect.  The rotation of the earth counteracts a tiny amount of gravity at the equator, while it doesn't at the rotational poles.



			NASA IMAGE satellite,Ask the Space Scientist Archive
		

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Quasar44 said:


> This is 100 percent due to man but it’s nothing to take seriously ...yet


the scientists seem to be screaming otherwise.


----------



## Dagosa

Quasar44 said:


> Why are conservatives such dimwits with science ??
> I am a Trump supporter and I also follow science


Really ? How can anyone support Trump and somehow think they “follow science”what ever that means. Trump has distain for anything that doesn’t line his pockets.


----------



## Dagosa

Quasar44 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> 
> Thinks AGW and evolution are hoaxes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Global Warning : we’re seeing “ very mild temp spikes “; this is nothing to be alarmed about , yet . This is 100 percent due to man but it’s nothing to take seriously ...yet
Click to expand...

Seriously ? The monies that we are now spending to combat the ravages of climate change including the recession we are in, is related to climate change. The loss of farm lands has driven millions to food sources that spread diseases. Mild spikes ? They don’t hve to be catastrophic to effectively create hardships. Just the deer tick infiltration related diseases has been spreading accross America for decades because of the slow warming trend.


----------



## Dagosa

Quasar44 said:


> Evolution is beyond facts


As is AGW. AGW evidence is deeply imbedded in evolution.


----------



## ding

We are in an interglacial cycle for crying out loud.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> We are in an interglacial cycle for crying out loud.


Wow! Have you told the global scientific community this? Imagine how surprised they will be!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in an interglacial cycle for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Have you told the global scientific community this? Imagine how surprised they will be!
Click to expand...

No.  I just tell that to those who think that atmospheric CO2 will be 900 ppm by the year 2100.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in an interglacial cycle for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Have you told the global scientific community this? Imagine how surprised they will be!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I just tell that to those who think that atmospheric CO2 will be 900 ppm by the year 2100.
Click to expand...

That is definitely on the high end.


----------



## james bond

Quasar44 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re a science illiterate dummy
> Go back to the 4th grade
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This science section is not worth my time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science section is for intelligent people so that's why you're leaving.  Gravity sucks, but your knowledge of science sucks even more.  Be sure to let the doors hit you hard on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are uneducated and very ignorant guy!!
> You are fully entitled to your views
Click to expand...


What a liar.  You said you were leaving S&T because it wasn't worth your time.  Actually, it was way above your head.  You could not explain your post #257 cogently if your life depended on it.

I will laugh hearty when you learn you were wrong in science and end up in tribulation or the other place.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I stopped reading right there.  Many scientists and science-minded people would lol, think you know very little, are wrong and move on.


You stopped reading in 1981, at age 6 except for the NT.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You stopped reading in 1981, at age 6 except for the NT.
> `


After all your lame unscientific posts in S&T, this is the best you can come up with lmao?

I think most of the believers or atheists do not discuss their faith (no need to), but do so here to argue between creation and evolution.  It's incredulous to me that _some_ smart people have fallen for lies.  They can't tell me how evolution has helped their lives for the better lol.


----------



## miketx

Daryl Hunt said:


> I've decided to repeal the law of gravity.  Here goes.  I feel myself getting lighter.  Now it takes both hands to hold onto the keyboard. I had better turn on the voice typing feature........there, that's done.  Now I can conti.......I am losing my grip..........HELP ME!!!!!  I AM RISING UP FASTER........   hisssing sound.
> 
> That's another stupid person that ignored science.  Darwin takes care of them sooner or later.


Hit that guy with your skateboard and take his rifle. - Charles Darwin


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course it can. A scientific theory is an explanation. The explanation can, actually, be true. It is quite safe to assume evolutionary theory is true and, therefore, fact. It is known to be true as much as any explanation can ever be known to be true.


You stop at what a theory actually is. In science, there are few if any theories over the decades and  centuries that the scientific method  has been used, that any theory has stood the test of time without being adjusted, modified and in some case, discarded. You can’t say anything in s ience is more then a theory no matter how relevant it appears to be now. If you believed  in a GOD as the ultimate truthism, you would certainly have egg on your face as soon as the tides were explained in scientific  terms. Tell me, is Newtonian physics based upon a theory or  proven  facts ?
“*The explanation can, actually, be true.* ”
Look at your statement here. Newtonian physics is only true for a given set of conditions. when you consider what we learned about atoms as the substructure of molecules, it’s not true at at all. It’s absolutely false. But, Newtonian physics is still a practical explanation for many situations because it’s an applicable set of theories. This is NOT PLANE  GEOMETRY  where you can prove a theory is true and call it a Theorem. Plane Geometry is a close system that does not introduce additional evidence. .  Don’t be confused between the two.

Science NEVER DECLARES ABSOLUTES. To do so would make it a religion.
theory- supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There is nothing in the definition of a theory that declares it’s always true, nothing. It’s always subject to change as new evidence   is found.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> They can't tell me how evolution has helped their lives for the better lol.


Well, theories in evolution, most in genetics has been instrumental in doubling your life expectancy. Every bit of Food  you eat from a store or vaccine you take is altered or developed using genetics which is a foundation of  evolution. Biology understanding doesn’t exist today without evolutionary  theories.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> You can’t say anything in s ience is more then a theory no matter how relevant it appears to be now.


We can and do, because sometimes it is absurd to make any other determination.

Like evolution as the origin of species.

It's a fact.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> After all your lame unscientific posts in S&T, this is the best you can come up with lmao?
> 
> I think most of the believers or atheists do not discuss their faith (no need to), but do so here to argue between creation and evolution.  It's incredulous to me that _some_ smart people have fallen for lies.  They can't tell me how evolution has helped their lives for the better lol.


Really, you can’t tell me one thing that evolution has not played a part in.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We can and do, because sometimes it is absurd to make any other determination.
> 
> Like evolution as the origin of species.
> 
> It's a fact.


You’re calling it a fact. No one in science does. The origin of our species is a theory and a reasonable explanation subject to change and modification as new evidence is found. In Darwin origin of the species, much of the work is still sound to day, some points have been revised. Why do you keep arguing that you have no idea how science works ?


----------



## miketx

Dagosa said:


> Really, you can’t tell me one thing that evolution has not played a part in.


This thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> You’re calling it a fact. No one in science does.


Uh, yes they do.



			https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
		




			https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/
		










						Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Off the top of my head...


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> *WRONG Entry you MORON.
> Precisely the target of this thread. Just PERFECT you 12 IQ Clown!*
> 
> 1. Wiki: 'Scientific Theory'
> 
> *....The definition of a Scientific Theory*​(often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly Different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". *​*In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*​​Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_​No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.​​In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​`​


The hypothesis of evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable.   In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs.  Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism.  Can you say _goo-goo-gaga_?  —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Applied Science:  When you can apply science to reproduce life separate from natural reproduction within the same species.....come talk to us about using FACTS concerning the theory of evolution.

Who says that gravity is only a theory?  Anything that can be "quantified" via its "potential" and measured to repeat, time and time again in a constant manner as defined by the Laws of Physics is no longer a theory........its demonstrable science.

Applied Science:  Try it sometimes instead of philosophy dressed like actual science.  You are attempting to declare that "theoretical science" does not exist as a philosophy yet time and time again most theories are based upon the observable facts witnessed today.........as if the Universe does not change, does not use and exhaust energy........as if that which is seen today is a constant in the universe and applied to eons past to include assumptions in calculating time period BILLIONS of years in the past.

For instance.  Wind, you can't see it, you can't touch it but its quantifiable and measurable  as defined by its "potential" energy.   All energy is subject to quantification as governed by the laws of physics.  One cannot see an Atom....but its energy is quantified and its potential is used to create new uses for atomic energy with regularity.

You know what is not quantifiable?  Love and Life? Man cannot create/reproduce Life...... Yet there are theories existing NOT BASED UPON FACTS but rather IDEAS (thought) making such theory more in line with PHILOSOPY rather than applied science.   The origin of the universe is also an UNKOWN as far as the laws of physics are concerned.  Yet some would call this philosophy of the BIG BANG a fact......even thought the best IDEA of Cosmology is that the energy that supposedly caused the BIG BAG.......created itself from nothing, directly in contradiction to the laws of physics.   If you belief that, can I interest you in some ocean front property in Ks.?


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> *WRONG Entry you MORON.
> Precisely the target of this thread. Just PERFECT you 12 IQ Clown!*
> 
> 1. Wiki: 'Scientific Theory'
> 
> *....The definition of a Scientific Theory*​(often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science *is significantly Different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". *​*In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the Opposite of its meaning in science. *These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."​
> 
> 2. *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> Scientific American - June 2002
> John Rennie - Editor in Chief
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> [......]
> *1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*​​Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), _a scientific theory is “a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_​No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.​​In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _FACT_ of evolution.....​`​


The hypothesis of evolution is the stuff of magic, indeed, the stuff of fairy dust, leprechauns, unicorns . . . your mother-in-law's fruitcake.   —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ​The hypothesis of evolution is the stuff of magic, indeed, the stuff of fairy dust, leprechauns, unicorns . . . your mother-in-law's fruitcake.   —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​


Actually, it's difficult to comprehend your profound ignorance of that you wish to denigrate. Your babbling is a strong illustration of the fallacious thinking that inundates creationism and other anti-science bigotry.

You can deny evolution, but I'd have to ask your motivation for doing so. If it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is *all* we have seen so far), then I would have to question your intellectual honesty. You would rather believe, _without the slightest shred of evidence,_ in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sticks to snakes, water to wine, and on, and on.

You don't have to 'believe' evolution. You can accept that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon have evidence and fact-based data  .You can accept the general idea that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. While that obviously clashes with your flat earth / literalist biblical worldview, don't expect educated people to accept your nonsensical Bible thumping.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Actually, it's difficult to comprehend your profound ignorance of that you wish to denigrate. Your babbling is a strong illustration of the fallacious thinking that inundates creationism and other anti-science bigotry.
> 
> You can deny evolution, but I'd have to ask your motivation for doing so. If it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is *all* we have seen so far), then I would have to question your intellectual honesty. You would rather believe, _without the slightest shred of evidence,_ in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, sticks to snakes, water to wine, and on, and on.
> 
> You don't have to 'believe' evolution. You can accept that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon have evidence and fact-based data  .You can accept the general idea that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. While that obviously clashes with your flat earth / literalist biblical worldview, don't expect educated people to accept your nonsensical Bible thumping.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> ​*The hypothesis of evolution *is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable.   In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs.  Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism.  Can you say _goo-goo-gaga_?  —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​


Not even raging uneducated Kweationists call Evolution a Hypothesis.
It's a 'Scientific Theory'. (not to be confused with common less sure usage of the word theory alone)

SWAT!

`


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> Not even raging uneducated Kweationists call Evolution a Hypothesis.
> It's a 'Scientific Theory'. (not to be confused with common less sure usage of the word theory alone)
> 
> SWAT!
> 
> `


Nah.  No.  Negative.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> View attachment 587292


'

It's always so easy to refute the religious extremists. Just hit em' with the facts and they crumble.


----------



## Clyde 154

Hollie said:


> '
> 
> It's always so easy to refute the religious extremists. Just hit em' with the facts and they crumble.


Fact:  Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution.  Why?  Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc.  and especially no record a primate changing into a man.

You know what is in the fossil record?  Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time.   When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species.  The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.

  No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences)  because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus.  Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem?  Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.









						Living fossil - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh, yes they do.
> 
> 
> 
> https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-law-no-its-a-fact/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernst Mayr - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head...


And neither one speak for a scientific consensus  community.
The AAAS, the worlds largest organization of scientist sees it differently. It’s called a theory for a reason. It’s an explanation. One that can be altered as new evidence is found. Life is simple. you can list all the individuals you want, they mean nothing as opposed to the AAAS or Harvard, or Yale or any consensus institution.








						What Makes Evolution a Theory? - AAAS - DoSER
					

In this intriguing short film, Dr. Jeff Hardin discusses key ideas relating to the definition of scientific theory and what…




					sciencereligiondialogue.org


----------



## Dagosa

miketex said:


> This thread.


You’re discussing it aren’t you. That was easy.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Fact:  Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution.  Why?  Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc.  and especially no record a primate changing into a man.
> 
> You know what is in the fossil record?  Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time.   When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species.  The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.
> 
> No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences)  because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus.  Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem?  Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


You don’t seem to understand how important anything defined as a theory is in science. It takes a lot of work to get consensus from enough of a community to decide something is a theory. Why don’t you look up what a theory is before you pretend evolution should be dismissed becouse it’s only a theory. Do you  have a cell phone. It’s development was ENTIRELY based upon the science around the theories applied to its engineering. How about the food you eat. They are nearly entirely based upon the evolution   related theory to genetics.


----------



## Dagosa

Ringtone said:


> ​The hypothesis of evolution is predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is scientifically indemonstrable.   In the meantime, we know for a fact per observation that adaptive radiation occurs.  Given that the fundamental imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists, the assumption that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause and effect—i.e., that evolution is necessarily true—is the baby talk scientism.  Can you say _goo-goo-gaga_?  —Ringtone's Handbook on Pseudoscience​


Why do you call evolution a hypothesis ? It’s not. It’s a theory. Go grab a dictionary if you  want your remarks read beyond that first erroneous phrase. You’re a confused puppy jumping from one term to another just to generate woo woo. What a blowhard post.

A hypothesis is a starting point based upon limited evidence, subject to further study. A theory is an agreed upon explanation based upon trials and accumulated evidence, and in the case of evolution, after  literally centuries of work.


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Fact:  Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution.  Why?  Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc.  and especially no record a primate changing into a man.
> 
> You know what is in the fossil record?  Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time.   When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species.  The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.
> 
> No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences)  because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus.  Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem?  Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



You may have a basic misunderstanding of terms and definitions. Evolutionary science does not address the beginning of life, only how biological systems evolve due to external, environmental conditions and biological chemistry.


----------



## miketx

Dagosa said:


> You’re discussing it aren’t you. That was easy.


You must not know what discuss means.


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Fact:  Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution.  Why?  Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc.  and especially no record a primate changing into a man.
> 
> You know what is in the fossil record?  Living fossils that have been demonstrated to be exactly the same over the eons (supposedly) of time.   When you prompt living fossils, you will get no denial that these creatures have not changed species over the years.......but you will get the standard DEFLECTION attempting to claim that evolution is still true because there have been changes with that same species.  The ole switch a rue..............you claim changes outside of species and then claim that because changes have been recorded within species this somehow equates to the type of Darwinian evolution taught as truth (changes outside of species)........only in superman's (Darwin) Bizarro World.
> 
> No one has ever denied that all life forms have the ability to adapt to their surroundings (what is called evolution by the pseudo sciences)  because their DNA contains the necessary links to produce that adaptive change.........if not human life would have become extinct the moment it first encountered radical weather or a common virus.  Yet this pseudo science (Darwinian) claims that all life came from the sea (cold blooded) and changed from single celled cold blooded life examples into warm blooded complex land dwelling creatures......the only problem?  Applied Science nor the fossil record supports that pseduo conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living fossil - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


The term you're not familiar with is _speciation_ and there are many examples.

Observed Instances of Speciation


CB910: New species


Some More Observed Speciation Events


Just a thought, but Wiki is not the best choice for science matters.


----------



## Clyde 154

Hollie said:


> The term you're not familiar with is _speciation_ and there are many examples.
> 
> Observed Instances of Speciation
> 
> 
> CB910: New species
> 
> 
> Some More Observed Speciation Events
> 
> 
> Just a thought, but Wiki is not the best choice for science matters.



Real Science is Objective in nature.......not subjective as in (IT APPEARS TO HAVE........."  appears to have exists only in the human mind.
Seciation:  Always within the same species........... even in the example you presented of NEW SPECIES it contradicts your won logic or lack thereof.   Can you not comprehend............a "mesquito" is still the same species its still a "mesquito" new or not, and the next example of cancer.......is ALWAYS developed in the same species..........read from your own presentation, "similar" event APPEARS (real objective science here.....appears   ) to have happened in Dogs.......these (wink, wink) new examples of life are always confined to the same species.   A Rose is a Rose.  And you can't sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces and call it candy.

There is no evolution outside of species.  You attempted to deflect without using Applied Science to develop life from non living matter.  Everything you presented is an example of adaptation WITHIN SPECIES.  Its existed from the beginning.   A new species of mesquito is still a mesquito ........a new example of a virus  or germ is still a virus or a germ within the confines of the same species.

Show us the applied science that demonstrates how fish have evolved into warm blooded land dwelling examples of life.  You cannot because there are no such examples in the real world.  In the real world.......living fossils exist.


----------



## Dagosa

miketex said:


> You must not know what discuss means.


You obviously don’t. If evolution didn’t play a part in so many things, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Try again. You’re just dismissing  something that has played the major part doubled your life expectancy.
I bet you didn’t know either that Quantum theory is directly and indirectly tied to over 70% of our economy. Being science illiterate just is no excuse for being ignorant of the world around you.


----------



## miketx

Dagosa said:


> You obviously don’t. If evolution didn’t play a part in so many things, we wouldn’t be discussing it. Try again. You’re just dismissing  something that has doubled your life expectancy.


Try what again? Making you cry like a girl?


----------



## Dagosa

miketex said:


> Try what again? Making you cry like a girl?


You’re still the one who can’t come up with one thing that isn’t influenced and enhanced by genetics.
Being a science illiterate must be a challenge for you.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Applied Science:  When you can apply science to reproduce life separate from natural reproduction within the same species.....come talk to us about using FACTS concerning the theory of evolution.
> 
> Who says that gravity is only a theory?  Anything that can be "quantified" via its "potential" and measured to repeat, time and time again in a constant manner as defined by the Laws of Physics is no longer a theory........its demonstrable science.
> 
> Applied Science:  Try it sometimes instead of philosophy dressed like actual science.  You are attempting to declare that "theoretical science" does not exist as a philosophy yet time and time again most theories are based upon the observable facts witnessed today.........as if the Universe does not change, does not use and exhaust energy........as if that which is seen today is a constant in the universe and applied to eons past to include assumptions in calculating time period BILLIONS of years in the past.
> 
> For instance.  Wind, you can't see it, you can't touch it but its quantifiable and measurable  as defined by its "potential" energy.   All energy is subject to quantification as governed by the laws of physics.  One cannot see an Atom....but its energy is quantified and its potential is used to create new uses for atomic energy with regularity.
> 
> You know what is not quantifiable?  Love and Life? Man cannot create/reproduce Life...... Yet there are theories existing NOT BASED UPON FACTS but rather IDEAS (thought) making such theory more in line with PHILOSOPY rather than applied science.   The origin of the universe is also an UNKOWN as far as the laws of physics are concerned.  Yet some would call this philosophy of the BIG BANG a fact......even thought the best IDEA of Cosmology is that the energy that supposedly caused the BIG BAG.......created itself from nothing, directly in contradiction to the laws of physics.   If you belief that, can I interest you in some ocean front property in Ks.?


“ only a theory “ is a slight of the word 
Deniers need look up what a “theory” is. It takes decades or longer including the agreement   of the vast majority of the scientific community for a hypothesis to reach the level of a theory  in science.


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Real Science is Objective in nature.......not subjective as in (IT APPEARS TO HAVE........."  appears to have exists only in the human mind.
> Seciation:  Always within the same species........... even in the example you presented of NEW SPECIES it contradicts your won logic or lack thereof.   Can you not comprehend............a "mesquito" is still the same species its still a "mesquito" new or not, and the next example of cancer.......is ALWAYS developed in the same species..........read from your own presentation, "similar" event APPEARS (real objective science here.....appears   ) to have happened in Dogs.......these (wink, wink) new examples of life are always confined to the same species.   A Rose is a Rose.  And you can't sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces and call it candy.
> 
> There is no evolution outside of species.  You attempted to deflect without using Applied Science to develop life from non living matter.  Everything you presented is an example of adaptation WITHIN SPECIES.  Its existed from the beginning.   A new species of mesquito is still a mesquito ........a new example of a virus  or germ is still a virus or a germ within the confines of the same species.
> 
> Show us the applied science that demonstrates how fish have evolved into warm blooded land dwelling examples of life.  You cannot because there are no such examples in the real world.  In the real world.......living fossils exist.


I'm not clear you understood what was presented to you.

1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.

5) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.

6.) The evolution of all living things in concert with the evolution of DNA is established scientific fact.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> You may have a basic misunderstanding of terms and definitions. Evolutionary science does not address the beginning of life, only how biological systems evolve due to external, environmental conditions and biological chemistry.


That’s for sure.


----------



## Captain Caveman

The whole of science is constructed from theories.


----------



## Clyde 154

Hollie said:


> I'm not clear you understood what was presented to you.
> 
> 1) The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.
> 
> 2) The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particular;y rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.
> 
> 3) Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.
> 
> 4) The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” I am happy to also go into much greater depth here if you are interested.
> 
> 5) There are several competing explanations for abiogenesis, and the current research in the field is extensive and fruitful. But the point remains, (snark) the first DNA was seeded on Earth by space aliens, or created by Allah, Maybe Vishnu or perhaps by a formidable, unionized consortium of gods.
> 
> 6.) The evolution of all living things in concert with the evolution of DNA is established scientific fact.


I understand completely, you are attempting to define evolution within species as the type of evolution taught as fact, completely based upon the ideology of Darwinian Cultism.......that species can evolve into a totally different species of life.   As I said, come back when you can APPLY SCIENCE and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of observable, reproducible, consistent experimentation and prove that a fish can evolve into warm blooded animals, or a virus (non-living) can evolve into a bacteria (living) or a reptile can evolve into a foul/bird..............

Change WITHIN SPECIES is not evolution as instructed by supporters of DARWIN or the theory of evolution.  What you are defining as evolution is not actually evolution.........all the markers required to adapt or change to meet environmental conditions preexisted any change.  MUTATION takes away from a healthy intact strain of DNA it does not add new information.  That's why when you present a picture of a deformed fish and attempt to declare that is somehow a fish caught changing into a new species is caused by MUTATION.....the healthy DNA has been corrupted.



Human fossil record?  

Another example is the supposed different species of MAN..........the pseudo promoters will never consider that what they finding in the fossil record is a group of isolated humans that are a product of corrupted DNA due to inbreeding.  The deformed skulls and deformed jaw lines,  the twisted and humped over backs etc.,    Funny indeed.


  To declare that a virus "mutates" and changes into a new virus is very laughable.  A virus is made of non living molecules....its never been alive.  What you are attempting to define as "evolution" is ALWAYS within the same species.  Simply because a DNA marker might be dormant until required to sustain and promote the species via adaptation is not an indicator that it never existed in the first place.


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> I understand completely, you are attempting to define evolution within species as the type of evolution taught as fact, completely based upon the ideology of Darwinian Cultism.......that species can evolve into a totally different species of life.   As I said, come back when you can APPLY SCIENCE and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of observable, reproducible, consistent experimentation and prove that a fish can evolve into warm blooded animals, or a virus (non-living) can evolve into a bacteria (living) or a reptile can evolve into a foul/bird..............
> 
> Change WITHIN SPECIES is not evolution as instructed by supporters of DARWIN or the theory of evolution.  What you are defining as evolution is not actually evolution.........all the markers required to adapt or change to meet environmental conditions preexisted any change.  MUTATION takes away from a healthy intact strain of DNA it does not add new information.  That's why when you present a picture of a deformed fish and attempt to declare that is somehow a fish caught changing into a new species is caused by MUTATION.....the healthy DNA has been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> Human fossil record?
> 
> Another example is the supposed different species of MAN..........the pseudo promoters will never consider that what they finding in the fossil record is a group of isolated humans that are a product of corrupted DNA due to inbreeding.  The deformed skulls and deformed jaw lines,  the twisted and humped over backs etc.,    Funny indeed.
> 
> 
> To declare that a virus "mutates" and changes into a new virus is very laughable.  A virus is made of non living molecules....its never been alive.  What you are attempting to define as "evolution" is ALWAYS within the same species.  Simply because a DNA marker might be dormant until required to sustain and promote the species via adaptation is not an indicator that it never existed in the first place.


“Darwinian cultism”?

I think you still might be having difficulty with terms and definitions. While I supplied verifiable data for speciation and the relevant references, you have decided that none of it is true, completely without anything to support your claim. Are you suggesting that the global community of scientists are “cultists”?











						Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
					

Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.




					phys.org
				



Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.



Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that. And the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for the anti-science crowd. If you have evidence for a supernatural causation, present it.

I do, in fact, accept the evidence for evolution in general and Darwininan evolution in particular because it is the strongest of all competing theories for the origin and diversity of species. I also accept Einstein's theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the plate tectonic theory of earth history. Because they are respectively the strongest of all competing theories for gravity, disease and earth history.


Darwinian theory has demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

Further, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to define as "Natural Selection."  Evolution defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

The “cult of Darwin” has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, biological evolution is not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put your work before peer review and let's see how you do


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Fact:  Life could not have evolved as defined by the "theory"...........not a law, of evolution.  Why?  Because Science has never recreated life from non living matter or witnessed through the science of archaeology (fossil records) any lifeform changing from one species into a totally new species (all the supposed evolution is always within the same species)...i.e. there is no fossil record of a fish changing into a warm blooded creature, no record of a cat (feline) that has evolved into a k-9...etc.  and especially no record a primate changing into a man.


The original spark/abiogenesis is not evolution
evolution starts after life, no matter how it started.
As to changing species there is tremendous evidence.
In-between species/subspecies are found yearly filling in and making more gradual that change.
New species happen as subspecies get further and further away.. As soon as they cross a river that start and keep diverging, eventually far enough to become species.
Those tweeners are able to be and are predicted ONLY because of Evolution.

Of course, the alternative is to believe every species was CREATED about the way it is now.
In which case we are not dealing with scientific/taxonomic 'species' at all, but with creationists call 'Kinds': look-alikes.
Chimps and Gorillas have two species each but YOU would not make that distinction.
So you are a creationist and/Or are completely ignorant of the term 'species.'

`


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Change WITHIN SPECIES is not evolution


Change within a species is consistent with  evolution ….you‘re starting with a false statement ..
Deniers are in their bogus idea about not being able to see a new species develop before their eyes. Well, they are. You’re just too uninformed to know what’s happening.

All species are not  changing as many are in an environment that does not support the change; they are doing fine just the way they are. We maybe  witnessing some change due to covid and many unwilling to take vaccines  and dying.  Even Trump can see his support “dying off.“
.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> The whole of science is constructed from theories.


And evidence, hypothesis, principles and laws…etc.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> To declare that a virus "mutates" and changes into a new virus is very laughable.


Why is that laughable. Iron evolves and changes  into iron oxide under some conditions and iron is hardly alive. There is a plethora of things that change over time under different conditions. Ever heat up a pad of butter to pour over your popcorn ?

Virus has DNA.


----------



## Rogue AI

The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.


----------



## abu afak

Rogue AI said:


> The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.


We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)

Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it,  but some help confirm it. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.

`


----------



## Orangecat

Gravity is not a theory. The cause of gravity is.


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.


Seriously ? Are you kidding ? MODERN BIOLOGY IS BASED UPON EVOLUTION THEORY WORK.  You have to be kidding. Every thing you normally buy in a grocery store, is genetically engineered. 

At Every hospital most treatments you get from vaccines to cancer treatments to control of infections are founded in genetic engineering.. 

Geesus, the covid vaccine works on altering the dna of the virus. Computer science can use  algorythyms originally designed for DNA  mapping for other purposes . 

You now have a life expectancy that is doubled by our knowledge of EVOLUTION that would not have happened otherwise.

There may not be a farmer in the United States that doesn’t use genetic engineered seeds . The fking common milk cow and today’s steer were  fking  bred into existence by evolutionary related studies. 


TELL US AGAIN HOW THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION  IS NOT TESTED AND VERIFIED IN OUR LIVES EVERY DAY.


----------



## Dagosa

Orangecat said:


> Gravity is not a theory. The cause of gravity is.


Exactly. Theories are explanations that add understanding. .


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> And evidence, hypothesis, principles and laws…etc.


But still all theories.

Just saw an article in the news that they found a metal that does not obey the law of known physics. The reason being, all the 'set in stone' science laws are still just theories.


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.


Why are you going to a lab to “ test gravity ? “ Just jump  off a roof or throw a ball. You test gravity when you climb out of bed in the morning just like you demonstrate  evolution when you pour milk over your cereal and eat it.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> Exactly. Theories are explanations that add understanding. .


Science is purely a subject that tries to describe your surroundings. These are called Scientific Theories. No matter how set in stone you think something is, it's prone to change over the years to come.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> But still all theories.
> 
> Just saw an article in the news that they found a metal that does not obey the law of known physics. The reason being, all the 'set in stone' science laws are still just theories.


Why are belittling the word ” Theory” in science.
In science, NOTHING becomes a theory until it’s been agreed upon by an overwhelming number of science INSTITUTIONS using consensus using accumulated evidrnce and trials by all participating scientists after decades, and sometimes centuries. WTF are you saying ?

You talk like  any butt head can wake up, invent an idea and call it a theory in science. Nope, scientist make a  hypothesis first. Your post Is totally devoid   of science awareness.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> Science is purely a subject that tries to describe your surroundings. These are called Scientific Theories. No matter how set in stone you think something is, it's prone to change over the years to come.


You‘re staggering around because you‘er explaining it incorrectly. Science isn’t just a subject. It’s a way of doing literally, every major activity where verifiable results are importat. SCIENCE IS A METHODOLOGY.
Every military, manufacturer, lawyer and major retailer, economist, engineer, medical practitioner, FARMER , INDUSTRIALIST and economist uses science. Politicians should all The time.

For example, the most advanced law degree is a SCIENCE degree. BS in college is for “bachelor of science” and applies to EVERY SUBJECT, even the arts.


----------



## Rogue AI

Dagosa said:


> Seriously ? Are you kidding ? MODERN BIOLOGY IS BASED UPON EVOLUTION THEORY WORK.  You have to be kidding. Every thing you normally buy in a grocery store, is genetically engineered.
> 
> At Every hospital most treatments you get from vaccines to cancer treatments to control of infections are founded in genetic engineering..
> 
> Geesus, the covid vaccine works on altering the dna of the virus. Computer science can use  algorythyms originally designed for DNA  mapping for other purposes .
> 
> You now have a life expectancy that is doubled by our knowledge of EVOLUTION that would not have happened otherwise.
> 
> There may not be a farmer in the United States that doesn’t use genetic engineered seeds . The fking common milk cow and today’s steer were  fking  bred into existence by evolutionary related studies.
> 
> 
> TELL US AGAIN HOW THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION  IS NOT TESTED AND VERIFIED IN OUR LIVES EVERY DAY.


That you have sunk so low as to comparing sentience with plant life speaks volumes.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> *But still all theories.*
> 
> Just saw an article in the news that they found a metal that does not obey the law of known physics. The reason being, all the 'set in stone' science laws are still just theories.


#30th posting for me?

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*









						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




`


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> But still all theories.
> 
> Just saw an article in the news that they found a metal that does not obey the law of known physics. The reason being, all the 'set in stone' science laws are still just theories.


You’re confused because you go through life misusing the word “ theory” when you should be using the word “ hypothesis”.
Ted Williams developed the Science if Hitting. It’s based upon a Theory in Hitting a thrown baseball. It has stood the test of time because many trials  and lots of evidence by real scientist have “ agreed .” 
Some coaches use these ideas, some don‘t. The ones that don’t, have no where near the results as those who do. That’s how science works. People are more successful using it instead of making up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> That you have sunk so low as to comparing sentience with plant life speaks volumes.


You’re not a scientist or are science literate  are you ?
If you want to speak volumes about science  . , at least look up the word “science” in a dictionary.


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> You’re confused because you go through life misusing the word “ theory” when you should be using the word “ hypothesis”.
> Ted Williams developed the Science if Hitting. It’s based upon a Theory in Hitting a thrown baseball. It has stood the test of time because many trials  and lots of evidence by real scientist have “ agreed .”
> Some coaches use these ideas, some don‘t. The ones that don’t, have no where near the results as those who do. That’s how science works. People are more successful using it instead of making up shit.


Uneducated people, especially Creationists, use the common, casual, and less important definition of 'theory' instead of looking up the definition of 'Scientific Theory.'
The latter not your take on whose going to win the super bowl.

`


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> Why are belittling the word ” Theory” in science.
> In science, NOTHING becomes a theory until it’s been agreed upon by an overwhelming number of science INSTITUTIONS using consensus using accumulated evidrnce and trials by all participating scientists after decades, and sometimes centuries. WTF are you saying ?
> 
> You talk like  any butt head can wake up, invent an idea and call it a theory in science. Nope, scientist make a  hypothesis first. Your post Is totally devoid   of science awareness.


WTF am I saying? Doesn't matter if E=mc2 and umpteen billion agree with it, it's a theory, and one day in the future, it will get expanded on and a spacecraft will go beyond the speed of light. But at this moment in time, it's a great scientific theory. If you think the word theory is being belittled, you simply don't understand the subject.

At the start of my Open University degree that went down the geology route, my first two years were in science. So you take a photo of the moon, and from that, work out the distance to it. If you can, you did the OU foundation science course.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> You‘re staggering around because you‘er explaining it incorrectly. Science isn’t just a subject. It’s a way of doing literally, every major activity where verifiable results are importat. SCIENCE IS A METHODOLOGY.
> Every military, manufacturer, lawyer and major retailer, economist, engineer, medical practitioner, FARMER , INDUSTRIALIST and economist uses science. Politicians should all The time.
> 
> For example, the most advanced law degree is a SCIENCE degree. BS in college is for “bachelor of science” and applies to EVERY SUBJECT, even the arts.


No, science tries to describe your surroundings and these pieces of work are called theories.


----------



## Wyatt earp

abu afak said:


> Uneducated people, especially Creationists, use the common, casual, and less important definition of 'theory' instead of looking up the definition of 'Scientific Theory.'
> The latter not your take on whose going to win the super bowl.
> 
> `


Gravity has been debunked a long time ago where have you been? It dosent work around some stars


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> #30th posting for me?
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> [.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


Yes, science is just all theories. As they get expanded on, they can alter from slightly to a great deal to shelved. And umpteen billion will agree with the theory throughout it's development.


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> Uneducated people, especially Creationists, use the common, casual, and less important definition of 'theory' instead of looking up the definition of 'Scientific Theory.'
> The latter not your take on whose going to win the super bowl.
> 
> `


Creationist's have their theories, scientists have their theories. I'm agnostic, but lean scientifically. I hope this post makes your replies to my posts more relevant.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> #30th posting for me?
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> [.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


I hear you. I think it’s because we misuse the word “theory” so much in our daily life instead of using the word hypothesis.  People who don’t believe in science are arguing from a point of ignorance.
A jury trial is an exercise in the scientific method . Science is a methodology of developing theories. It can apply to any thing we do.  . .


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> *[Yes, science is just all theories.* As they get expanded on, they can alter from slightly to a great deal to shelved. And umpteen bloom will agree with the theory throughout it's development.


Evolution is a FACT as well as a theory.
You Goofily said _"But still all theories"_ which is discounting what are now Facts as if they were just the common usage of the word.
Demonstrating you know **** about science or evolution.

You're just a contrary Clown in every thread on every subject.
`


----------



## Rogue AI

Dagosa said:


> You’re not a scientist or are science literate  are you ?
> If you want to speak volumes about science  . , at least look up the word “science” in a dictionary.


It is you backing the idea that fiddling around with the very building blocks of an organism and getting miniscule improvements equates to a monkey to man certainty.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> Creationist's have their theories,


 But they aren’t entitled to call, them “ theories” in the real world. And most don‘t. They often call, them “ laws” of some god. They can’t be then held accountable for making up stuff.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> *Creationist's have their theories, scientists have their theories.* I'm agnostic, but lean scientifically. I hope this post makes your replies to my posts more relevant.


100% demonstrating you do NOT know what a Scientific Theory is.
*Creationist have no factual basis for their belief/Faith, Science only get's to theory after logical thought, then Hypothesis, then further evidenced/tested to become a Scientific Theory.*

You are so LOW IQ you are undebatable.
A Raging contrary Idiot.
Who also is an 'agnostic' on evolution v Creationism. 
*Evolution is a fact that has nothing to do with a religious belief.. It's a demonstrable fact with Evidence, unlike Religions/gods.*

`


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> Evolution is a FACT as well as a theory.
> You Goofily said _"But still all theories"_ which is discounting what are now Facts as if they were just the common usage of the word.
> Demonstrating you know **** about science or evolution.
> 
> You're just a contrary Clown in every thread on every subject.
> `


First time I've seen you reply without copying and pasting an article.

Sorry cupcake, all facts still theories. If you want to view a fact as set in stone, knock your fucking pan in.


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> It is you backing the idea that fiddling around with the very building blocks of an organism and getting miniscule improvements equates to a monkey to man certainty.


I have no idea what you’re babbling about. You’re bouncing from one thing to another. Evolution is demonstrated continuously all around you In the modern world. It’s like someone saying quantum theory isn’t either while they are talking on a cell phone or using the internet. Advanced science is demonstrated everyday in most things normal people do…..like eat, watch TV and their jobs.


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> 100% demonstrating you do NOT know what a Scientific Theory is.
> *Creationist have no factual basis for their belief/Faith, Science only get's to theory after logical thought, then Hypothesis, then further evidenced/tested to become a Scientific Theory.*
> 
> You are so LOW IQ you are undebatable.
> A Raging contrary Idiot.
> Who also is an 'agnostic' on evolution v Creationism.
> *Evolution is a fact that has nothing to do with a religious belief.. It's a demonstrable fact with Evidence, unlike Religions/gods.*
> 
> `


Listen thick ****, I will say this only once, so stick your finger in one lug hole and open the other.

The only thing you know for sure on this earth is, "I think, therefore I am". You know you exist, anything past that is open to interpretation.

Every fucking thing is just theory. Facts are theories.


----------



## Rogue AI

Dagosa said:


> I have no idea what you’re babbling about. You’re bouncing from one thing to another. Evolution is demonstrated continuously all around you In the modern world. It’s like someone saying quantum theory isn’t either while they are talking on a cell phone or using the internet. Advanced science is demonstrated everyday in most things normal people do…..like eat, watch TV and their jobs.


I'm not surprised you don't comprehend. 

Cell phones, or more correctly digital transfer these days is not quantum theory. It is based on known wave frequencies in which technology has broadened the ability to send and receive. 

You mistake my purpose. I am very much in support of science and the betterment of our species. I do not support the broken orthodoxy that seems to have bogged down modern science.


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> It is you backing the idea that fiddling around with the very building blocks of an organism and getting miniscule improvements equates to a monkey to man certainty.


Not any monkey. Only the common ancestral of both. It isn’t like an ape today will evolve into a man. They have no need. Their environment doesn’t demand it.

You do get that fewer and fewer humans  are being born with wisdom teeth don’t you ? This coukd be as a result if learning to use fire to cook food.

Do you deny that nearly every food you buy in a store has been genetically engineered ?


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> Every fucking thing is just theory. Facts are theories.


Wrong. We all got fked over by Trump. That’s fact.


----------



## abu afak

Still waiting:



> Rogue AI said:
> The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.



We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)

Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it, but some help confirm it. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.

`


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> Wrong. We all got fked over by Trump. That’s fact.


TDS


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> Cell phones, or more correctly digital transfer these days is not quantum theory. It is based on known wave frequencies in which technology has broadened the ability to send and receive.


I suppose you think that the radio waves pass through the walls of your house by magic.
Read. It’s good for  you. 








						How your Smartphone uses Quantum Mechanics - Quantum Technology
					

Webportal of the Quantum Flagship initiative. The Second Quantum Revolution is unfolding now and the Quantum Flagship is driving this revolution in Europe. Discover Quantum Technologies, learn more about the project and engage with the Quantum Technology Community.



					qt.eu


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> First time I've seen you reply without copying and pasting an article.
> 
> Sorry cupcake, all facts still theories. If you want to view a fact as set in stone, knock your fucking pan in.


Most of my posts are NOT Copy/Pastes.

See, when you have brain (and know the documentation for your opinion IS out there) you realize that a 'debate' cannot just continue yes-no-yes-no, and that someone has to inject some basis or authority for their opinion.
So I have to Use it often.
THAT is the way debate works. With basis, not yes/no/yes/no.

You NEVER do/can because you are just an empty talking head/combative clown whose opinion has no credible link/source for it. 
This thread a perfect example.



`


----------



## Rogue AI

Dagosa said:


> Not any monkey. Only the common ancestral of both. It isn’t like an ape today will evolve into a man. They have no need. Their environment doesn’t demand it.
> 
> You do get that fewer and fewer humans  are being born with wisdom teeth don’t you ? This coukd be as a result if learning to use fire to cook food.
> 
> Do you deny that nearly every food you buy in a store has been genetically engineered ?


The problem I see is in the practice. The theory can only account for so much. Taking the 'common ancestors' into account sounds fine on paper yet attempting to apply the idea even theoretically requires some significant leaps of faith. Nor does this relate to just one or two species, but multiple species over time. The boundaries of logic begin to fray when attempting to accept the numerous inter-species breeding, each resulting in viable offspring who then usurp both progenitor species, not once but multiple times. Do the math on that and perhaps you too will begin to question current orthodoxy.


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> Most of my posts are NOT Copy/Pastes.
> 
> See, when you have brain (and know the documentation for your opinion IS out there) you realize that a 'debate' cannot just continue yes-no-yes-no, and that someone has to inject some basis or authority for their opinion.
> So I have to Use it often.
> 
> You NEVER do/can because you are just an empty talking head/combative clown whose opinion has no credible link/source for it.
> This thread a perfect example.
> 
> 
> 
> `


You and old rocks are the '"copy n' paste" duo.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> You and old rocks are the '"copy n' paste" duo.


As I said:

Most of my posts are NOT Copy/Pastes.

See, when you have brain (and know the documentation for your opinion IS out there) you realize that a 'debate' cannot just continue yes-no-yes-no, and that someone has to inject some basis or authority for their opinion.
So I have to Use it often.
THAT is the way debate works. With basis, not yes/no/yes/no.

*You NEVER do/can because you are just an empty talking head/combative clown whose opinion has no credible link/source for it. 
This thread a perfect example.*

`


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> As I said:
> 
> Most of my posts are NOT Copy/Pastes.
> 
> See, when you have brain (and know the documentation for your opinion IS out there) you realize that a 'debate' cannot just continue yes-no-yes-no, and that someone has to inject some basis or authority for their opinion.
> So I have to Use it often.
> THAT is the way debate works. With basis, not yes/no/yes/no.
> 
> *You NEVER do/can because you are just an empty talking head/combative clown whose opinion has no credible link/source for it.
> This thread a perfect example.*
> 
> `


You copied and pasted your last post.

You and old rocks are the '"copy n' paste" duo.

 (retard)


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> '
> 
> It's always so easy to refute the religious extremists. Just hit em' with the facts and they crumble.


Or refer to the “ Bible”, as if that’s a paragon of truth. In reality, a Bible contains so many variation on the so called facts, it’s obvious what a Bible is. It’s a written scammer to appease people on both sides of an idea to keep the donations flowing.


It’s like god is all good and all powerful but needs our full obedience for his own gratification ?


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> Or refer to the “ Bible”, as if that’s a paragon of truth. In reality, a Bible contains so many variation on the so called facts, it’s obvious what a Bible is. It’s a written scammer to appease people on both sides of an idea to keep the donations flowing.
> 
> 
> It’s like god is all good and all powerful but needs our full obedience for his own gratification ?


The Bible is symbolic, not literal.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> “ only a theory “ is a slight of the word
> Deniers need look up what a “theory” is. It takes decades or longer including the agreement   of the vast majority of the scientific community for a hypothesis to reach the level of a theory  in science.


Is Darwinism a fact or theory?









						Darwinism - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dagosa

Rogue AI said:


> The theory can only account for so much.


So, what’s your point ? If it could account for everything, we’d call it a religion. That’s NOT. what science is all about. We aren’t expected to have all the answers. Only by expanding a theory beyond the limits of the prevailing evidence by inject more, can one improve upon their understanding.

you deniers have no idea how far reaching evolution theory is. Get you head out of  fix news ass and do some  research at any medical science or any science  web site…..or are you too afraid. 
Food, climate change, medicine etc  are all related to evolution. Afraid to Google ?


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> The Bible is symbolic, not literal.


In other words, it’s anyone’s guess. I guess that frees you up to make up any meaning you want to a passage. Something like Oz and the 2@. 
Science is literal. No effin guessing.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> Is Darwinism a fact or theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


False Choice
I've already posted a Link from Scientific American that's says it's Both.
I didn't catch your refutation.
Not even an excerpt from the link.  (I embarrassed you into FINALLY posting one.)

You still do NOT Understand the meaning of 'Scientific Theory.'

You have spectacularly Low: IQ, reading comprehension, and maturity level.

`


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> Is Darwinism a fact or theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Why don’t you just look it up. Dah. You don’t seem to lend much credence to theories. you must be afraid to fly or use  a cell phone.

your own reference….gee, that’s not hard. Did you even read it ?
*“Darwinism* is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others,” notice, it took a few decades.


----------



## Rogue AI

Dagosa said:


> So, what’s your point ? If it could account for everything, we’d call it a religion. That’s NOT. what science is all about. We aren’t expected to have all the answers. Only by expanding a theory beyond the limits of the prevailing evidence by inject more, can one improve upon their understanding.
> 
> you deniers have no idea how far reaching evolution theory is. Get you head out of  fix news ass and do some  research at any medical science or any science  web site…..or are you too afraid.
> Food, climate change, medicine etc  are all related to evolution. Afraid to Google ?


Deniers only exist in the closed minds of True Believers. You can't explain things and have a hissy fit when confronted. It is dolts like you that have closed off innovation and news lines of thinking in continued support of broken orthodoxy.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> In other words, it’s anyone’s guess. I guess that frees you up to make up any meaning you want to a passage. Something like Oz and the 2@.
> Science is literal. No effin guessing.


No. The Bible uses text to serve as a symbol. It was written in various letters in the culture at that time and it has been translated from Hebrew. I briefly studied the Bible for a few years to try and grasp it's meaning in a formal group. If you've not done something like this, I'm not wasting my time with you.

And the translation from Hebrew is another obstacle because when the letters were written, the word 'Inn' did not exist in Hebrew. So you have translation errors as well.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Dagosa said:


> Why don’t you just look it up. Dah. You don’t seem to lend much credence to theories. you must be afraid to fly or use  a cell phone.
> 
> your own reference….gee, that’s not hard. Did you even read it ?
> *“Darwinism* is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others,” notice, it took a few decades.


I gave you the link you thick ****


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> False Choice
> I've already posted a Link from Scientific American that's says it's Both.
> I didn't catch your refutation.
> Not even an excerpt from the link.  (I embarrassed you into FINALLY posting one.)
> 
> You still do NOT Understand the meaning of 'Scientific Theory.'
> 
> You have spectacularly Low: IQ, reading comprehension, and maturity level.
> 
> `


It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.


AGAIN:


*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - Editor-in-Chief
July 1, 2002 - Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In Addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."*


15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​
`


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> AGAIN:
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - Editor-in-Chief
> July 1, 2002 - Scientific American
> [.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), *a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." *No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In Addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."*
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​
> `











						Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing
					

It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people acce…




					thelogicofscience.com


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing
> 
> 
> It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people acce…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thelogicofscience.com


You don't need a link for that clown.
Wow, I really *embarrassed* you into trying to look educated!
Two in a row!

I've already said that many times in this thread alone. Look back the last few pages. (or immediately below to my thrice repeated post)
*Science does not deal in Proof, only Math does.*
You need a link for that goofy?
Not in dispute Moron.
*But everything does not need to be proven to be a fact.*

Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Evolution at 160 years and getting stronger with every New Science, Decade, Fossil Find, etc.

`


----------



## abu afak

Rogue AI said:


> *Deniers only exist in the closed minds of True Believers.* You can't explain things and have a hissy fit when confronted. It is dolts like you that have closed off innovation and news lines of thinking in continued support of broken orthodoxy.


YOU ARE THE DENIER AND A FRAUD.
You can't answer me denier.
THIRD TIME:



> Rogue AI said:
> The theory of gravity can be tested in laboratories across the planet, each netting the same result. The theory of evolution, not so much.



We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
(Captain Caveman too) But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)

Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it, but some help confirm it. (lab-tested DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.

`


----------



## BackAgain

Gravity is not just a theory. It’s the LAW!


----------



## abu afak

BackAgain said:


> Gravity is not just a theory. It’s the LAW!











						Scientific Theory vs Law
					

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…




					medium.com
				




*"There is a common Misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. *
This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
[.....
.....]
`


----------



## BackAgain

abu afak said:


> Scientific Theory vs Law
> 
> 
> There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> medium.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"There is a common Misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. *
> This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
> [.....
> .....]
> `


Nah. It was just the set-up for an old joke.


----------



## BackAgain

I know that this defies the law of gravity, but, you see, I never studied law. (Bugs Bunny)


----------



## Rogue AI

abu afak said:


> YOU ARE THE DENIER AND A FRAUD.
> You can't answer me denier.
> THIRD TIME:
> 
> 
> 
> We have overwhelming Physical evidence for Evolution.
> What in Court would be called "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
> A great circumstantial case, plenty good enough to hang a man.
> (Captain Caveman too) But true proof, as sci would use it is not 90%. Not 99.9%.
> Only math has absolute 100% 'proof' (2+2=4)
> 
> Some sciences, like astronomy, are also not lab-able but observational.
> Though the Hard evidence for Evo has been piling up for 160 years.
> Many new sciences since, and all relevant ones not only don't contradict it, but some help confirm it. (lab-tested DNA, Isotopic dating, etc),
> And all new found fossils consistent in age/strata, and in finding tweeners that only Evolution (not creationism) could and does predict.
> One fossil out of place of millions found could have blown it. None has.
> 
> `


You quacks are too much. You only accept ideas that confirm your preconceptions and lash out like children by proclaiming any dissent is denial of science. Pathetic.


----------



## abu afak

Rogue AI said:


> You quacks are too much. You only accept ideas that confirm your preconceptions and lash out like children by proclaiming any dissent is denial of science. Pathetic.


We all have ideas.
Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
Show me I'm wrong.
That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
We do have a religion section tho.

Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
So it's YOU who are the denier.

`


----------



## Rogue AI

abu afak said:


> We all have ideas.
> Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
> Show me I'm wrong.
> That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
> We do have a religion section tho.
> 
> Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
> So it's YOU who are the denier.
> 
> `


Funny I have never mentioned or argued religion anywhere on these forums. Come up with some new material you two bit hack.


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> You don’t seem to understand how important anything defined as a theory is in science. It takes a lot of work to get consensus from enough of a community to decide something is a theory. Why don’t you look up what a theory is before you pretend evolution should be dismissed becouse it’s only a theory. Do you  have a cell phone. It’s development was ENTIRELY based upon the science around the theories applied to its engineering. How about the food you eat. They are nearly entirely based upon the evolution   related theory to genetics.


A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists?  The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,

nearly........entirely..........really?  That passes as science or ya?


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> We all have ideas.
> Apparently you can't explain or defend yours.
> Show me I'm wrong.
> That's what this place is for. It's not for worship.
> We do have a religion section tho.
> 
> Problem is you can't defend your belief v mine (what I posted to you) and you know it.
> So it's YOU who are the denier.
> 
> `


joke?  Again........applied science is real science, anything based upon mental projections is nothing but "philosophy"

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." -- Romans 1:22

Why can no one explain the origins of the universe as based upon the natural laws of physics?  Why can no one reproduce life from non-living matter?  Apply science to these questions and answer them based upon that application and come back tell us how smart you are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> And neither one speak for a scientific consensus community.


Who does, then?

Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.

Like, evolution as the origin of species. Ask any biologist if that is a fact.


The answer will be"yes".

I understand the point you are making, in that nothing can be "100% proven" in science. But nothing  ever will be, and yet facts will always exist.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists?  The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,
> 
> nearly........entirely..........really?  That passes as science or ya?


Silly remarks of a science illiterate. I suppose you know more then the pentagon and every of nation in the world, all hospitals and  320 plus accredited universities in the world. Educated people know evolution, doofus crowd knows shit. Seriously, did you make to bio class ?


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Irrelevant. Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.
> 
> Like, evolution as the origin of species. Ask a biologist if that is a fact.
> 
> 
> The answer will be"yes"


Having fun mimicking drop out Hannity and dufus Tucking. The toothless crowd is getting belligerent. Really, have you had your vaccination for covid ? You should. You don‘t want to  get a chance to see evolution in action this close and personal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Having fun mimicking drop out Hannity and dufus Tucking.


I think you might have posted this to the wrong person.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> I gave you the link you thick ****


No shit….it’s hilarious.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I think you might have posted this to the wrong person.


Wouldn’t be the first time.


----------



## Death Angel

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Idiotic comparison


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> Idiotic comparison


This is the science section, not the religion litterbox.

Make your arguments, if you can.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> No. The Bible uses text to serve as a symbol. It was written in various letters in the culture at that time and it has been translated from Hebrew. I briefly studied the Bible for a few years to try and grasp it's meaning in a formal group. If you've not done something like this, I'm not wasting my time with you.
> 
> And the translation from Hebrew is another obstacle because when the letters were written, the word 'Inn' did not exist in Hebrew. So you have translation errors as well.


Such is the way of any Bible. Or course, it went way beyound the church to establish one universal language then translate everything to it……like science does.

So, all of this is an explanation why the Bible is a novel. After years of attending Catholic classes, I figured that out pretty early.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> It's a theory, retard. Darwin has your family evolving from the amoebas.


So, just because we  call anything a “theory” makes it less important ? Nope……..like Einstein’s theory of relativity Newtonian physics and Quantum theory. We do get that a theory in science  is the highest level of acceptance that any science ascribes to. Maybe you’re confusing “theory” with “hypothesis “.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> applied science is real science,


Tell us what applied science is .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Tell us what applied science is .


Applied science is engineering.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Point being, scientists do refer to some theories as facts.


Yes, individual scientist may. But they all couch it within a closed system based upon what we know now. For example, if evolution is factual to a scientist, it is based upon all known studies and evidence and it’s the ONLY explanation we should accept at this time. A theory is an explanation, not an absolutism. It’s a set of working guidelines. 

Institutionally, a theory is a theory is a theory and every theory with new evidence is subject to alteration and change. We have a plethora of theories that were altered or changed but remain relevant. Newtonian physics is no longer absolute, but it’s still functional within a certain set of parameters.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Applied science is engineering.





Clyde 154 said:


> A consensus is not based upon applied science.....a consensus is an "OPINION".......some of the consensus opinions held by supposed scientists?  The earth was the center of the solar system with the sun revolving around the earth.........the earth was flat.........etc.,
> 
> nearly........entirely..........really?  That passes as science or ya?


 

All applied science is based upon acceptance of theories in theoretical science by ANYONE  who uses it.
You really are science illiterate if you think TRIALS  aren’t just a way of applying the science to generate acceptable outcomes. Geesus, wtf do you think science theory is if it doesn’t include TRIALS  and applications. Geesus, they make fuck7ng prototypes of everything that needs a consistent outcome. The engineers are acting as theoretical scientists  during trials to get outcomes they need.


Your fakery  is stark.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> But they all couch it within a closed system based upon what we know now.


No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.

Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.

Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Applied science is engineering.


Well, sounds like the Texas side step. 
“Applied science is a discipline that is used to apply *existing scientific knowledge* to develop more practical applications,”

To be clear, anyone can apply already existing science. The engineer didn't develope the use for science unless he’s involved in the  trials used to verify out comes.

Relying on  applied Science before developing it is a little far fetch. How does one do that ? 

Secondly, theories don’t exist until they ARE tried and verified. Applied science comes in DURING and after the fact But it doesn’t exist at all without the knowledge first. ,


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.
> 
> Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.
> 
> Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.


Who are they who wrote these books ? “ They” are not institutions. They are not a dictionary.  No science theory was ever developed without institutional support. So, just like any one with an opinion, you can always find someone to agree.
seriously…








						Scientific Theory Examples & Characteristics | What is Scientific Theory? - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
					

Learn the definition of a scientific theory. This lesson will explain the characteristics of a scientific theory and the importance of the...




					study.com
				




A theory is not a fact. It’s an explanation, based upon facts. If new facts or evidence reveals a an alteration of a theory, it can be changed. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.  The facts include the evidence, the results of trials etc. . A law is a fact that applies to one cause and effect. But,  it’s not an explanation or theory.

This is all why consensus becomes important. There will be disagreement on theories. But when 320 institutes of higher learning all agree, the theory is solid. But by definition, it’s not a fact.


----------



## Dagosa

Death Angel said:


> Idiotic comparison


Like your avatar ?


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.
> 
> Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.
> 
> Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.


And for every individual who does that, I can counter with a an institution that does not. The institution has dozens of scientists who back their own findings. You will 
always be vastly outnumbered…….and incorrect. Really, even dictionaries disagree.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.


They will say, they believe the consensus of the knowledge which is the theory, to be true.
Science theory  change is nothing new. A theory involves  many aspects to it. Many will hold true, some will not. 
Do you understand that there are some things in Darwin’s theory of evolution that have been changed ? 
That doesn’t mean a theory is right or wrong. It’s just an explanation given the facts Darwin had at the time. He didn’t have an electron microscope and he didn’t have all the fossil remains we have now.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I assure you they don't always. They even write entire books for the purpose of explicitly stating it is a fact and why it is a fact.
> 
> Now, I think we would agree that they don't use that language in academic papers. But they don't need to do so for any reason.
> 
> Some theories are true. Scientists will say so. True things are facts.


Read this……it’s the real deal


			https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20


----------



## meaner gene

Dagosa said:


> Secondly, theories don’t exist until they ARE tried and verified. Applied science comes in DURING and after the fact But it doesn’t exist at all without the knowledge first. ,


Theories can actually exist in the absence of facts.  But under those circumstances it is not likely to become an accepted theory, just the rantings of someone.  As more facts come to light to either support or refute the theory, it may evolve to eliminate the discrepancies.

Once a theory is mature enough to be reliable, comes the applied science based on the theory.  Failures in the applied science may send the theory "back to the drawing board".


----------



## Dagosa

meaner gene said:


> Theories can actually exist in the absence of facts.


That’s not science. That’s just an opinion founded in normal conversation not associated with a dictionary.
In science, a theory is the highest order of general explanation  of a topic and is based upon FACTS and evidence. A theory is not a fact, never has been. But it needs facts to form the explanation. Maybe you’re confusing it with the  word, hypothesis.


----------



## Dagosa

meaner gene said:


> comes the applied science based on the theory


More of this bogus applied science sht. It’s a lot easier for someone else to do all the work I guess. Real science in developing theories is hard work. Applied science is Letting someone else do the heavy lifting while you fiddle fart around with someone else hard work.


----------



## meaner gene

Dagosa said:


> That’s not science. That’s just an opinion founded in normal conversation not associated with a dictionary.
> In science, a theory is the highest order of general explanation  of a topic and is based upon FACTS and evidence. A theory is not a fact, never has been. But it needs facts to form the explanation. Maybe you’re confusing it with the  word, hypothesis.


Even in science, theories have to start somewhere.  Today we have the advantage that our scientists are "standing on the shoulders of giants", but it has not always been.  
And of course, there is "good" science, and "bad" science.   Just think of "cold fusion" for bad science that passed for good science.


----------



## meaner gene

Dagosa said:


> More of this bogus applied science sht. It’s a lot easier for someone else to do all the work I guess. Real science in developing theories is hard work. Applied science is Letting someone else do the heavy lifting while you fiddle fart around with someone else hard work.











						Applied science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine. Applied science is often contrasted with basic science, which is focused on advancing scientific theories and laws that explain and predict events in the natural world.

Applied science can also apply formal science, such as statistics and probability theory, as in epidemiology. Genetic epidemiology is an applied science applying both biological and statistical methods.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory.


You fall for the liberal simpleton science.  We scholars know it's both law and theory.

What's this law?  In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement.  It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do such as atheists will usually be wrong.

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.  The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."


----------



## abu afak

Rogue AI said:


> Funny I have never mentioned or argued religion anywhere on these forums. Come up with some new material you two bit hack.


*Still whiffed my post and it's facts THREE Times.*
You are the hack.
Empty POS one too.
You got no game.
You down 50 IQ points BOY.
`


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> joke?  Again........applied science is real science, anything based upon mental projections is nothing but "philosophy"
> 
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." -- Romans 1:22
> 
> *Why can no one explain the origins of the universe as based upon the natural laws of physics?  Why can no one reproduce life from non-living matter?  Apply science to these questions and answer them based upon that application and come back tell us how smart you are.*


Everything we CAN explain is due to Science.
We used to have Fire, Lightning, and Fertility gods before we could explain them too.
10,000 gods all gone.

google 'God of the Gaps'

`


----------



## abu afak

Death Angel said:


> Idiotic comparison


Why is that?
`


----------



## Rogue AI

abu afak said:


> *Still whiffed my post and it's facts THREE Times.*
> You are the hack.
> Empty POS one too.
> You got no game.
> You down 50 IQ points BOY.
> `


Children who scream 'denier' are not interested in anything outside their narrow minded assumptions.


----------



## abu afak

Rogue AI said:


> Children who scream 'denier' are not interested in anything outside their narrow minded assumptions.


You accused someone else of being a denier.
I only responded and did so with basic evo facts.
I repeated 3 times to no answer. each time
Who is the denier?
and this makes FOUR posts with NO answer
Conspicuous denial.

26 'disagrees' in 10 minutes?
USMB record. (and optional vio for mods to give)
You are not even capable of 'disagreeing' with me at all obviously. *Not once in words.*
"two bit hack"?

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Applied science is a discipline that is used to apply *existing scientific knowledge* to develop more practical applications,”


Okay, it was only trying to add.to it. I get it. Developing red.meat for the engineers.


----------



## Dagosa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay, it was only trying to add.to it. I get it. Developing red.meat for the engineers.


Yup...agree. Working engineers are a valuable group that use applied science and as the name infers, try to develop other uses. But, like the Manhattan project among many others including Covid, its the theoretical science that develops the working theory for a primary use. Included in that development are actual trials which could last for months to decades before a working theory is developed or a primary application, either for saving people’s lives or killing them. But, nuclear energy has also saved and made many more lives easier then it has taken...so far..as has evolution science.


----------



## Dagosa

meaner gene said:


> Applied science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine. Applied science is often contrasted with basic science, which is focused on advancing scientific theories and laws that explain and predict events in the natural world.
> 
> Applied science can also apply formal science, such as statistics and probability theory, as in epidemiology. Genetic epidemiology is an applied science applying both biological and statistical methods.


None of which can occur without a working theory first. The instance a person in applied science starts to tinker with and change an already working theory for the better he/she becomes a theoretical scientist.

When more applications for atomic energy wasdeveloped from the Manhattan project later, the working theory around nuclear energy was changed and enhanced. It happens all the time. In addition, Scientists don’t work with one theory at an time. They are ALL inter connected.


----------



## Dagosa

meaner gene said:


> Applied science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine. Applied science is often contrasted with basic science, which is focused on advancing scientific theories and laws that explain and predict events in the natural world.
> 
> Applied science can also apply formal science, such as statistics and probability theory, as in epidemiology. Genetic epidemiology is an applied science applying both biological and statistical methods.


You’re just agreeing with us. Applied scientist use already established theories from this group among many others throughout the world. They number in the hundreds. Few are affiliated  with Fix News.
​
Institution  Nation  No. of Highly Cited Researchers  1. Harvard University  USA  188  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences  Mainland China  124  3. Stanford University  USA  106  4. National Institutes of Health  USA  103  5. Max Planck Society  Germany  70  6. University of California Berkeley  USA  62  7. Broad Institute  USA  61  8. University of California San Diego  USA  56  9. Tsinghua University  Mainland China  55  10. Washington University of St Louis


----------



## Dagosa

meaner gene said:


> Applied science is the use of the scientific method


As is theoretical science. Are we  under the illusion that all science including theoretical and applied are not-interrelated ? They are. Theoretical science uses applied science in their trials to enhance and verify the theory(s). There is no scientist worth his salt that is not always thinking of other applications even while working on developing a theory. So I fail to see any disagreement that one over the other is preferable.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You fall for the liberal simpleton science.  We scholars know it's both law and theory.
> 
> What's this law?  In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement.  It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do such as atheists will usually be wrong.
> 
> "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.  The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."


Without liberal thinking, science would not exist. Let’s look up the meaning of “ liberal” .


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Silly remarks of a science illiterate. I suppose you know more then the pentagon and every of nation in the world, all hospitals and  320 plus accredited universities in the world. Educated people know evolution, doofus crowd knows shit. Seriously, did you make to bio class ?


  Yeah.........pot, kettle, black thingy?  Consensus.......science. LMAO  Liberal thingking:  "They thought themselves wise........and became FOOLS".

Kind'a reminds me of the OLD WEST type Medicine Side Show and snake oil.  Pay no attention to the reality that I have no FACTS as required when applying science.......let me sell you some ideas guaranteed to heal anything from warts to scurvy, its the latest thing from SOCIALISM, imported directly from the eastern ideology of Communism, we can replace your capacity for critical independent thinking with a consensus HERD MENTAILTY based upon feelings and emotions.   Most importantly.......YOU WILL RECEIVE THE ACCOLADE OF ALL YOUR PEERS.

Come one!  Come all!  Rid yourself of those pesky little feelings of having a conscience.......sin with no feelings of guilt or judgment, direct your own morality......all it will cost you is one little Soul, that you are not using anyway........

"Beware least any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ". -- Col. 2:8

Beware the ISMS.


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> joke?  Again........applied science is real science, anything based upon mental projections is nothing but "philosophy"
> 
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." -- Romans 1:22
> 
> Why can no one explain the origins of the universe as based upon the natural laws of physics?  Why can no one reproduce life from non-living matter?  Apply science to these questions and answer them based upon that application and come back tell us how smart you are.


I see this a lot from those with an anti-science agenda. Because not every question is answered, science, knowledge and learning is to be vilified and condemned as flawed and untrustworthy.

One could make the case that it was approximately the middle of the 19th century when tools and methods of science began to expand exponentially We began a transition away from superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding success of science investigation and technology. The idea that science and _reason_ are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.

You want to denigrate science for not explaining the origin of the universe using “natural laws of physics”. Using those natural laws, science has largely (not entirely), explained the expansion of the universe to fractions of a second, Planck time, after the start of expansion. Those pesky natural laws of physics, motion, gravity seem to be consistent from Planck time going forward. Are you suggesting that natural laws are inferior and we need “un-natural laws” to gain a complete understanding?

The process of life developing from non-living matter, (abiogenesis), is not entirely understood. We know with absolute, 100% certainty abiogenesis occurred because life on the planet obviously exists. Either the process is natural or supernatural…. or maybe space aliens. If supernatural, how do we study or recreate it? Perhaps we don’t and just ignore it with, “we’ll never know”?


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah.........pot, kettle, black thingy?  Consensus.......science. LMAO  Liberal thingking:  "They thought themselves wise........and became FOOLS".
> 
> Kind'a reminds me of the OLD WEST type Medicine Side Show and snake oil.  Pay no attention to the reality that I have no FACTS as required when applying science.......let me sell you some ideas guaranteed to heal anything from warts to scurvy, its the latest thing from SOCIALISM, imported directly from the eastern ideology of Communism, we can replace your capacity for critical independent thinking with a consensus HERD MENTAILTY based upon feelings and emotions.   Most importantly.......YOU WILL RECEIVE THE ACCOLADE OF ALL YOUR PEERS.
> 
> Come one!  Come all!  Rid yourself of those pesky little feelings of having a conscience.......sin with no feelings of guilt or judgment, direct your own morality......all it will cost you is one little Soul, that you are not using anyway........
> 
> "Beware least any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ". -- Col. 2:8
> 
> Beware the ISMS.


Did you post anything worth reading ?


----------



## SmokeALib

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is the science section, not the religion litterbox.
> 
> Make your arguments, if you can.


Many famous scientists were Christian. Issac Newton for one. Charles Townes established that a huge black hole exists in the center of our galaxy. Townes - a Christian - also invented the laser.


----------



## SmokeALib

Check out the movie Interstellar. The science in this movie is based on the book Gravitation, written by Nobel winning physicist Kip Thorne. In it, he explains that black holes couldn't exist without gravity.








						Gravitational Waves Found: Kip Thorne Explains
					

Scientific American 's Josh Fischman talks with renowned astrophysicist and general relativity expert Kip Thorne about the discovery of gravitational waves by the LIGO Project, co-founded by Thorne.




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah.........pot, kettle, black thingy?  Consensus.......science. LMAO  Liberal thingking:  "They thought themselves wise........and became FOOLS".
> 
> Kind'a reminds me of the OLD WEST type Medicine Side Show and snake oil.  Pay no attention to the reality that I have no FACTS as required when applying science.......let me sell you some ideas guaranteed to heal anything from warts to scurvy, its the latest thing from SOCIALISM, imported directly from the eastern ideology of Communism, we can replace your capacity for critical independent thinking with a consensus HERD MENTAILTY based upon feelings and emotions.   Most importantly.......YOU WILL RECEIVE THE ACCOLADE OF ALL YOUR PEERS.
> 
> Come one!  Come all!  Rid yourself of those pesky little feelings of having a conscience.......sin with no feelings of guilt or judgment, direct your own morality......all it will cost you is one little Soul, that you are not using anyway........
> 
> "Beware least any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ". -- Col. 2:8
> 
> Beware the ISMS.


So, you are smarter then every accredited university in the world. Amazing. You should be a chancellor.


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Did you post anything worth reading ?


Of course not.......the "isms" are not worth reading.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Of course not.......the "isms" are not worth reading.


So, What’s the “ism” of the week you’re laying on smarter people ?


----------



## Dagosa

We


SmokeALib said:


> Check out the movie Interstellar. The science in this movie is based on the book Gravitation, written by Nobel winning physicist Kip Thorne. In it, he explains that black holes couldn't exist without gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gravitational Waves Found: Kip Thorne Explains
> 
> 
> Scientific American 's Josh Fischman talks with renowned astrophysicist and general relativity expert Kip Thorne about the discovery of gravitational waves by the LIGO Project, co-founded by Thorne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com


Well, that sucks


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> So, you are smarter then every accredited university in the world. Amazing. You should be a chancellor.


Thanks.  Its clear you are no match for logic, reason, truth and COMMON SENSE.

  Some of the most stupid people I have encountered have PhDs attached to their name.  If you don't have "horse sense" you have no sense.  There are those WHO CAN.......then you have those who attempt to teach that which have never done.   I see no difference between a left wing politician and a left wing PROF.  Both base their careers on the backs of those who have actually accomplished something.....while seeking the accolade of their peers.....truth does not matter, Any ends to a means, just ask your political hero, "Saul Alinsky". 

Again.  Its worth reposting ....................

Beware of the snake oil salesmen that pitch the "ISMS".   Liberal"ISM", Progressive"ISM", Social"ISM", Commun"ISM", Fasc"ISM"  All the preceding attempt to replace INDIVIUDAL FREEMON by transferring it to the STATE.  Example.  Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Hugo Chavez......etc.

You want to see the end results of your "ISMS"?   Look at Venezuela, the poster child of your LIBERAL AGENDA.  Perhaps you can sell your philosophy that the universe naturally created itself from NOTHING, or that fish morphed into Human Beings over billions of years.  As for Me...........I have been endowed with "Common Sense" and taught to "TEST EVERYTHING and HOLD ONTO THAT WHICH IS GOOD and PROVEN TO BE TRUE."  (1 Thes. 5:21)


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Thanks.  Some of the most stupid people I have encountered have PhDs attached to their name.  If you don't have "horse sense" you have no sense.  There are those WHO CAN.......then you have those who attempt to teach that which have never done.   I see no difference between a left wing politician and a left wing PROF.  Both base their careers on the backs of those who have actually accomplished something.
> 
> Again.  Its worth reposting ....................
> 
> Beware of the snake oil salesmen that pitch the "ISMS".


Well, because what you say is not supported by any accredited university in the world, you must think you’re smarter then all of them. Do you know how  silly your posts  are when no one with any brains agrees with you ? Oh, you have horse sense and they don’t. Wow. Imagine that.


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Well, because what you say is not supported by any accredited university in the world, you must think you’re smarter then all of them. Do you know how  silly your posts  are when no one with any brains agrees with you ? Oh, you have horse sense and they don’t. Wow. Imagine that.


No comprehension skills?  You know that is an indication that you have no COMMON SENSE?  You keep presenting "circular logic", repeating the same lame ass argument over and over as if repeating it makes it true.  I can see why you believe in a universe that created itself from nothing (magic)......or attempt to teach that FISH morphed into man over billions of years........WITHOUT presenting any OBJECTIVE evidence to support your lack of horse sense. 

Or your logic or lack thereof............CONSENSUS (Accolade)..........everyone else accepts it, I simply get on the band wagon.  I don't want my wittle liberal feelings hurt.

You have presented no OBJETIVE EVIDENCE that passes the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistency via applied experimentation that ends with FACTS in evidence.  Just like all liberals.......you are nothing but MOUTH.   Its others that don't understand because you are better, YOU ARE EDUCATED........condesending rhetoric   

You know......a monkey can be taught to beat on a piano keyboard but that does not make him Mozart.   Your education amounts to what you have been taught.  If you  are taught untruths....then your supposed superior education is worthless in THE REAL WORLD.  As for Me I have a degree in Applied Science and Technology.   Just how many more "unemployed" social workers or teachers does the world need?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SmokeALib said:


> Many famous scientists were Christian. Issac Newton for one. Charles Townes established that a huge black hole exists in the center of our galaxy. Townes - a Christian - also invented the laser.


So what?  That's like telling me a famous big game hunter is also a vegan. So who cares?


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> No comprehension skills?  You know that is an indication that you have no COMMON SENSE?  You keep presenting "circular logic", repeating the same lame ass argument over and over as if repeating it makes it true.  I can see why you believe in a universe that created itself from nothing (magic)......or attempt to teach that FISH morphed into man over billions of years........WITHOUT presenting any OBJECTIVE evidence to support your lack of horse sense.
> 
> Or your logic or lack thereof............CONSENSUS (Accolade)..........everyone else accepts it, I simply get on the band wagon.  I don't want my wittle liberal feelings hurt.
> 
> You have presented no OBJETIVE EVIDENCE that passes the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistency via applied experimentation that ends with FACTS in evidence.  Just like all liberals.......you are nothing but MOUTH.   Its others that don't understand because you are better, YOU ARE EDUCATED........condesending rhetoric
> 
> You know......a monkey can be taught to beat on a piano keyboard but that does not make him Mozart.   Your education amounts to what you have been taught.  If you  are taught untruths....then your supposed superior education is worthless in THE REAL WORLD.  As for Me I have a degree in Applied Science and Technology.   Just how many more "unemployed" social workers or teachers does the world need?


Ha ha
4 paragraphs, and still you’re pretending you know more then every a credited  university, govt and major corporation in the fking world. Geesus, you guys have no shame. Just a bunch of used car salesmen.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> I see this a lot from those with an anti-science agenda. Because not every question is answered, science, knowledge and learning is to be vilified and condemned as flawed and untrustworthy.
> 
> One could make the case that it was approximately the middle of the 19th century when tools and methods of science began to expand exponentially We began a transition away from superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding success of science investigation and technology. The idea that science and _reason_ are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.
> 
> You want to denigrate science for not explaining the origin of the universe using “natural laws of physics”. Using those natural laws, science has largely (not entirely), explained the expansion of the universe to fractions of a second, Planck time, after the start of expansion. Those pesky natural laws of physics, motion, gravity seem to be consistent from Planck time going forward. Are you suggesting that natural laws are inferior and we need “un-natural laws” to gain a complete understanding?
> 
> The process of life developing from non-living matter, (abiogenesis), is not entirely understood. We know with absolute, 100% certainty abiogenesis occurred because life on the planet obviously exists. Either the process is natural or supernatural…. or maybe space aliens. If supernatural, how do we study or recreate it? Perhaps we don’t and just ignore it with, “we’ll never know”?


Of course, they can’t tell you where they get their information from. Any white supremest backed minority. These guys are afraid of anything that supports equality of any kind.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> *some of the most stupid people I have encountered have PhDs attached to their name.  If you don't have "horse sense" you have no sense. *


Take ie, Warming denier westwall here. A claimed PhD who can't write a paragraph in any post/thread.
A mental defective with no game at all.
Never started a thread either in Science or Environment.




Clyde 154 said:


> There are those WHO CAN.......then you have those who attempt to teach that which have never done.   I see no difference between a left wing politician and a left wing PROF.  Both base their careers on the backs of those who have actually accomplished something.....while seeking the accolade of their peers.....truth does not matter,* Any ends to a means, just ask your political hero, "Saul Alinsky".*


You clearly have a wild bias/"Ism."
Joe Biden is Saul Alinsky?




Clyde 154 said:


> You want to see the end results of your "ISMS"?  * Look at Venezuela, the poster child of your LIBERAL AGENDA. *


Actually leftists/'socialists' here are thinking more of Norway/Scandinavia than Venezuela.
This is a classic ConservatISM dope Trope.




Clyde 154 said:


> *Perhaps you can sell your philosophy that the universe naturally created itself from NOTHING, *or that fish morphed into Human Beings over billions of years.  As for Me...........I have been endowed with "Common Sense" and taught to "TEST EVERYTHING and HOLD ONTO THAT WHICH IS GOOD and PROVEN TO BE TRUE."  (1 Thes. 5:21)


Perhaps you can sell us YOUR philosophy that god created himself/POOF!
And that all creatures were created at the same time instead of evolving, ie Genesis.
Demonstrably False if you are up to 6th grade Science.

And please tell us Which/WITCH god because at least 75% of the planet is wrong even if one stepped in it.
This is classic 'God of the Gaps' BS that didn't work when we tried it on Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc x10,000.
Clearly WE CREATED GODS.. lots of them.

You may be able to BS others for pages but you've already took a powder on my posts.
They never last more than Two posts with me because I can confront their logic problems.
No place to go except troll. (as many of the RW regulars do here.) This IS Fox News Jr High, with 80% RW trolls/mb rejects.

`


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> Take ie, Warming denier westwall here. A claimed PhD who can't write a paragraph in any post/thread.
> A mental defective with no game at all.
> Never started a thread either in Science or Environment.
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have a wild bias/"Ism."
> Joe Biden is Saul Alinsky?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually leftists/'socialists' here are thinking more of Norway/Scandinavia than Venezuela.
> This is a classic ConservatISM dope Trope.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can sell us YOUR philosophy that god created himself/POOF!
> And that all creatures were created at the same time instead of evolving, ie Genesis.
> Demonstrably False if you are up to 6th grade Science.
> 
> And please tell us Which/WITCH god because at least 75% of the planet is wrong even if one stepped in it.
> This is classic 'God of the Gaps' BS that didn't work when we tried it on Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc x10,000.
> Clearly WE CREATED GODS.. lots of them.
> 
> You may be able to BS others for pages but you've already took a powder on my posts.
> They never last more than Two posts with me because I can confront their logic problems.
> No place to go except troll. (as many of the RW regulars do here.) This IS Fox News Jr High, with 80% RW trolls/mb rejects.
> 
> `


God is an eternal spirit being..........there is nothing physical about the God of Creation.  Duh.  Question?  If creatures were not CREATED just how did an EGG evolve itself into existence?  What?  We are expected to accept as truth that a fully developed Chicken evolved itself into existence with no intelligence required to explain its DNA links?  

Simply present your Applied Science that falsifies Louis Pasteur's experimentation that states..... LIFE can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species.  On the other hand there are thousands of experiments falsified by Applied Science when there is an attempt to reproduce life from non living matter.

That is truth.  Prove otherwise.

Nothing but more "MOUTH" from a pseudo intellectual that starts and ends with the attempt to tell everyone how smart you are how stupid everyone is that don't agree with your great intellect.   Got any more "ISMS"?  If not just falsify an experiment that was conducted in the 19th century and still stands today.   Pasteur's scientific experiment demonstration that Abiogenesis is impossible as determined by the laws of physics.

You know who agrees with the scientific experiments concerning the reproduction of life by Pastuer?

The Holy Scriptures.

"And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that fly above the earth in the open firmament of the earth (atmosphere).................

And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind...........So God created man, male and female created He them.........and God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it (the earth)...........(Genesis 1:20-28)

Something YOUR GUILD (pseudo scientists) have never been able to falsify using the Scientific Method of Applied Science and Experimentation.  Life can only be reproduced, each after its own kind..........

Now just how smart an ole boy/girl (you can't tell today) are ya?  Your science (cough, cough) has been falsified time and time again.......God's science has never been subject to falsification via the Scientific Method.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hopefully someone else has already pointed out to the OP that Newton's "Law of Universal Gravity," was superseded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> God is an eternal spirit being..........there is nothing physical about the God of Creation.  Duh.  Question?  If creatures were not CREATED just how did an EGG evolve itself into existence?
> 
> Simply present your Applied Science that falsifies Louis Pasteur's experimentation that states the LIFE can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species.  On the other hand there are thousands of experiments falsified by Applied Science when there is an attempt to reproduce life from non living matter.
> 
> That is truth.  Prove otherwise.
> 
> Nothing but more "MOUTH" from a pseudo intellectual that starts and ends with the attempt to tell everyone how smart you are how stupid everyone is that don't agree with your great intellect.   Got any more "ISMS"?  If not just falsify and experiment that was conducted in the 19th century and still stands today.   Pasteur's scientific experiment demonstration that Abiogenesis is impossible as determined by the laws of physics.


*So NO answer to almost everything I posted, including the classic conservative trope of using "Venezuela" instead of ie, Norway.*

NO answer to my refutation of you similarly painting all liberals/progressives as "Saul Alinsky." Like Biden is Karl Marx.

*NO answer to Which/WITCH god? (there's so many We Created)*

"""God is an eternal spirit being..........there is nothing physical about the God of Creation.""

Any evidence of this god, or will it be the old 'everything is evidence of god.'

*You Literalist Lunatic, you're not within 50 IQ points of debating me and you are a COMPLETE FRAUD UNABLE TO ANSWER MY POSTS, While I cut yours to ribbons.

This is the Science section you are Proselytizing/Citing Scripture in clown, we talk evidence.*

`


----------



## Clyde 154

abu afak said:


> *So NO answer to almost everything I posted, including the classic conservative trope of using "Venezuela" instead of ie, Norway.*
> 
> NO answer to my refutation of you similarly painting all liberals/progressives as "Saul Alinsky." Like Biden is Karl Marx.
> 
> *NO answer to Which/WITCH god? (there's so many We Created)*
> 
> """God is an eternal spirit being..........there is nothing physical about the God of Creation.""
> 
> Any evidence of this god, or will it be the old 'everything is evidence of god.'
> 
> *You Literalist Lunatic, you're not within 50 IQ points of debating me and you are a COMPLETE FRAUD UNABLE TO ANSWER MY POSTS, While I cut yours to ribbons.
> 
> This is the Science section you are Proselytizing/Citing Scripture in clown, we talk evidence.*
> 
> `


Are lies really worth addressing when they have been previously addressed AD NAUSEM?   As I stated you pseudo characters deal only in Circular Logic.........you keep repeating the same Bull Sh...........that has been refuted by Applied Science time and time again under the pretention that if you keep repeating yourself it someone becomes truth.

You cannot present any FACTS of SCIENCE as determined by the Scientific Method of "observable", "reproducible", consistent experimentation.....that refutes the Creation model and verifies your false premise of a self created physical universe that defies the very laws of physics, to include the Laws of Causality, the Laws of Theromodynamics etc.,

And then you attempt tell everyone that intelligently designed life evolved from non living matter thru acts of violent explosions and chaos, which is falsified in every attempt to verify that false premise through Applied Science.

Where and when has life been reproduced in the lab through scientific experiment,  that does not use pre-existing life as a starting point?  Its always some lame ass excuse......the atmosphere was different......and it can't be reproduced,  when in reality you or your guilt have no idea what type of atmosphere existed because Science requires OBSERVATION not speculation and assumption of a constant Universe having existed the same eons' ago as it exists today.  (as assumed in using Radio Carbon Dating....when simple water leeching can drastically change the final data and projected dates).  Its not like the Science of Archaeology has determined that every inch of earth's land masses have been under water at some point in their history.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Are lies really worth addressing when they have been previously addressed AD NAUSEM?   As I stated you pseudo characters deal only in Circular Logic.........you keep repeating the same Bull Sh...........that has been refuted by Applied Science time and time again under the pretention that if you keep repeating yourself it someone becomes truth.
> 
> You cannot present any FACTS of SCIENCE as determined by the Scientific Method of "observable", "reproducible", consistent experimentation.....that refutes the Creation model and verifies your false premise of a self created physical universe that defies the very laws of physics, to include the Laws of Causality, the Laws of Theromodynamics etc.,
> 
> And then you attempt tell everyone that intelligently designed life evolved from non living matter thru acts of violent explosions and chaos, which is falsified in every attempt to verify that false premise through Applied Science.
> 
> Where and when has life been reproduced in the lab through scientific experiment,  that does not use pre-existing life as a starting point?  Its always some lame ass excuse......the atmosphere was different......and it can't be reproduced,  when in reality you or your guilt have no idea what type of atmosphere existed because Science requires OBSERVATION not speculation and assumption of a constant Universe having existed the same eons' ago as it exists today.  (as assumed in using Radio Carbon Dating....when simple water leeching can drastically change the final data and projected dates).  Its not like the Science of Archaeology has determined that every inch of earth's land masses have been under water at some point in their history.


That’s “facts in science”


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Are lies really worth addressing when they have been previously addressed AD NAUSEM?   As I stated you pseudo characters deal only in Circular Logic.........you keep repeating the same Bull Sh...........that has been refuted by Applied Science time and time again under the pretention that if you keep repeating yourself it someone becomes truth.
> 
> You cannot present any FACTS of SCIENCE as determined by the Scientific Method of "observable", "reproducible", consistent experimentation.....that refutes the Creation model and verifies your false premise of a self created physical universe that defies the very laws of physics, to include the Laws of Causality, the Laws of Theromodynamics etc.,
> 
> And then you attempt tell everyone that intelligently designed life evolved from non living matter thru acts of violent explosions and chaos, which is falsified in every attempt to verify that false premise through Applied Science.
> 
> Where and when has life been reproduced in the lab through scientific experiment,  that does not use pre-existing life as a starting point?  Its always some lame ass excuse......the atmosphere was different......and it can't be reproduced,  when in reality you or your guilt have no idea what type of atmosphere existed because Science requires OBSERVATION not speculation and assumption of a constant Universe having existed the same eons' ago as it exists today.  (as assumed in using Radio Carbon Dating....when simple water leeching can drastically change the final data and projected dates).  Its not like the Science of Archaeology has determined that every inch of earth's land masses have been under water at some point in their history.


You're one Giant 'God of the Gaps' no-logic idiot.
I've already explained that too and you have NO answer.
I put my old thread in your face too.

AGAIN:
*Because we don't know/know YET, is no reason to inject a god.
You would have thought yourself justified with the Fire, Lightening and Fertility gods too. RIGHT?
Now gone.


"Science requires observation.""
YES!
Exactly MORON, and we have millions of years of ever more complex animal fossils in exactly the right strata worldwide.
For the reason OF evolution we are able to predict we will find intermediate species... and indeed we do. 
There has been an explosion of new sciences in the 160 years since Darwin.
NONE contradict evolution, and many help Confirm it. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)

And what "observation" is there for god?
LOL
Which/Witch one?*

You can't debate me!!!! You're a brainwashed/indoctrinated clown who spouts NT and can't afford the truth or your whole life (family, friends, social life) falls apart.
​​`​


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> 4 paragraphs, and still you’re pretending you know more then every a credited  university, govt and major corporation in the fking world. Geesus, you guys have no shame. Just a bunch of used car salesmen.



You are yet to prove anything I presented to be a falsehood.   As I have said many times, you can sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces but that does not make it candy.  You have not falsified the CREATION MODEL of biogenesis..........you have not presented evidence of how the known universe created itself from nothing, when science proves that when you begin with nothing, nothing is all you will ever have............you have not presented/applied any science in proving that man evolved from fish as claimed. 

Question?  WHAT CREDIBILITY are you speaking of when you speak of UNIVERSTY teaching?   

That's some REAL SCIENCE you are presenting your greatness..........your skills of writing with articulation reveal your true educational status.  You can't hide from your "ID".   What?  You are about 15, 16?  You demonstrate the skills of a middle schooler.  My Bad.........hell, this is modern America, you could hold a PhD and your reading and comprehension skills would be at an 8th grade level if you are a product of public education.

ID, Super Ego, and Ego.  You can't hide from that which you do not possess........intelligence.  That's why the majority of you left wing nuts PARROT AND PASTE the skills of others while pretending to be smart.

Dumb downed democrats are dangerous, they actually believe they are intelligent, that's why the US stands at 30th place among world peers in math and science comprehension skills behind nations such as Hungry and the Slovak Republic....

You know the  department where the U.S. leads the world in education?  MONEY SPENT. OPM (the democrat favorite, other peoples money)  The US averages spending over 16K per student per year, when rest of the world averages but 10K per student per year, those other 30 nations ahead of the US in actual skills learned vs. skills attempted to be taught.   Hell.........someone has to make inept teacher's jobs secure through the union, and who would pay for all those political adds if the tax payers were not being conned?


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> You are yet to prove anything I presented to be a falsehood.   As I have said many times, you can sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces but that does not make it candy.  You have not falsified the CREATION MODEL of biogenesis..........you have not presented evidence of how the known universe created itself from nothing, when science proves that when you begin with nothing, nothing is all you will ever have............you have not presented/applied any science in proving that man evolved from fish as claimed.
> 
> Question?  WHAT CREDIBILITY are you speaking of when you speak of UNIVERSTY teaching?
> 
> That's some REAL SCIENCE you are presenting your greatness..........your skills of writing with articulation reveal your true educational status.  You can't hide from your "ID".   What?  You are about 15, 16?  You demonstrate the skills of a middle schooler.  My Bad.........hell, this is modern America, you could hold a PhD and your reading and comprehension skills would be at an 8th grade level if you are a product of public education.
> 
> ID, Super Ego, and Ego.  You can't hide from that which you do not possess........intelligence.  That's why the majority of you left wing nuts PARROT AND PASTE the skills of others while pretending to be smart.
> 
> Dumb downed democrats are dangerous, they actually believe they are intelligent, that's why the US stands at 30th place among world peers in math and science comprehension skills behind nations such as Hungry and the Slovak Republic....
> 
> You know the  department where the U.S. leads the world in education?  MONEY SPENT. OPM (the democrat favorite, other peoples money)  The US averages spending over 16K per student per year, when rest of the world averages but 10K per student per year, those other 30 nations ahead of the US in actual skills learned vs. skills attempted to be taught.   Hell.........someone has to make inept teacher's jobs secure through the union, and who would pay for all those political adds if the tax payers were not being conned?


This was all so predictable. Inevitably, the science loathing, science denying types will retreat to the religious / supernatural “CREATION MODEL” (note the capital letters for added melodrama).

While the poster makes no case, offers nothing to support his supernatural  creation model of the gods, others are somehow required to falsify his appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence.

It seems to me that a reasonable argument from “the gods did it” crowd is to first present their “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_”.

It’s important for the creation’istas to identify those components of objective reality which are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? I have no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than Bibles, Korans, Books of the Dead, etc., so instead of rational arguments being required to falsify supernaturalism, the burden of proof for claims to the gods falls to those who assert their gods. Seems simple enough.


----------



## Clyde 154

Hollie said:


> This was all so predictable. Inevitably, the science loathing, science denying types will retreat to the religious / supernatural “CREATION MODEL” (note the capital letters for added melodrama).
> 
> While the poster makes no case, offers nothing to support his supernatural  creation model of the gods, others are somehow required to falsify his appeals to magic and supernaturalism as an explanation for existence.
> 
> It seems to me that a reasonable argument from “the gods did it” crowd is to first present their “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_”.
> 
> It’s important for the creation’istas to identify those components of objective reality which are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? I have no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than Bibles, Korans, Books of the Dead, etc., so instead of rational arguments being required to falsify supernaturalism, the burden of proof for claims to the gods falls to those who assert their gods. Seems simple enough.


Again..........HOT AIR.  All hat no "cowGIRL"?  You parrot and paste and pretend to be smart.  You have presented no argument based upon any objective evidence.

 You have done nothing other than launch into some hyperbolic personal attack (just like all BIGOTED big mouthed liberals) in order to deflect from the fact that YOUR SCIENCE (  ) cannot support the absolute nonsense you profess as truth.   1.  A self creating universe whose source of energy simply created itself from "nothing", in direct contradiction to the laws of physics.  2. You cannot falsify the Creation Model of biogenesis demonstrated by Applied Science that states with Scientific Evidence that Life can only be reproduced via pre-existing life WITHIN the same species.....as demonstrated by Pasteur.

Several Reasons for such an attack void of Scientific Objectivity......or, Why is an atheist an atheist?

1. Greed, Materialism, Accolade.  "I can make a living selling this snakeoil because I am smarter than these religious freaks.  Can we spell BIGOT? 
2. Jealousy:  See point 1 accolade:  "If I hold this viewpoint I will be held in high esteem by my peers.
3. Loyalty:  My parents taught me this position and I am loyal regardless of the facts presented to disprove my position
4. Ambition:  "If everyone sees just how smart I am, I might advance my position in life. (reality: They professed themsevles to be wise but became fools)
5.  Selfishness: This poistion makes me feel better without any thought of judgment, I can live how I want to......
6. Sensualism:  I can indulge my sexual fantasies without guilt.
7. Ignorance:  I can't prove why I am an atheist, I just know that I am an atheist (its in vogue)
8. Bias/Prejudice/Bigotry:  I don't believe in God because my peers dont' believe in God, its difficult to seek accolade when you disagree
9. Pride:  All the smart people believe as I do........
10.  Indifference:  I know that I am always right......


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Again..........HOT AIR.  All hat no "cowGIRL"?  You parrot and paste and pretend to be smart.  You have presented no argument based upon any objective evidence.
> 
> You have done nothing other than launch into some hyperbolic personal attack (just like all BIGOTED big mouthed liberals) in order to deflect from the fact that YOUR SCIENCE (  ) cannot support the absolute nonsense you profess as truth.   1.  A self creating universe whose source of energy simply created itself from "nothing", in direct contradiction to the laws of physics.  2. You cannot falsify the Creation Model of biogenesis demonstrated by Applied Science that states with Scientific Evidence that Life can only be reproduced via pre-existing life WITHIN the same species.....as demonstrated by Pasteur.
> 
> Several Reasons for such an attack void of Scientific Objectivity......or, Why is an atheist an atheist?
> 
> 1. Greed, Materialism, Accolade.  "I can make a living selling this snakeoil because I am smarter than these religious freaks.  Can we spell BIGOT?
> 2. Jealousy:  See point 1 accolade:  "If I hold this viewpoint I will be held in high esteem by my peers.
> 3. Loyalty:  My parents taught me this position and I am loyal regardless of the facts presented to disprove my position
> 4. Ambition:  "If everyone sees just how smart I am, I might advance my position in life. (reality: They professed themsevles to be wise but became fools)
> 5.  Selfishness: This poistion makes me feel better without any thought of judgment, I can live how I want to......
> 6. Sensualism:  I can indulge my sexual fantasies without guilt.
> 7. Ignorance:  I can't prove why I am an atheist, I just know that I am an atheist (its in vogue)
> 8. Bias/Prejudice/Bigotry:  I don't believe in God because my peers dont' believe in God, its difficult to seek accolade when you disagree
> 9. Pride:  All the smart people believe as I do........
> 10.  Indifference:  I know that I am always right......


Nothing in that angry, petulant rant does anything to support a silly supernatural creation argument. I’m under no obligation to refute some “creation model of biogenesis” because just like the “*General Theory of Supernatural Creation” *it is never offered.

I’m never surprised at how quickly those who insist supernaturalism is a viable argument recoil in shocked surprise and angry tirades when they’re tasked with supporting their claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.

As to objectivity, that’s an interesting subject as nothing in claims to gods and supernaturalism can be judged by objective measures. What are the objective standards for claims to supernaturalism? I think it’s pretty clear that nothing in your responses has been presented in a way to support your claims. Your tirade does nothing to define what some “creation model of biogenesis”, is. You offer literally no evidence for “creation model of biogenesis”, yet you choose to believe that unquestioningly and launch into angry tirades when you’re tasked with defending it. What does that say about your objective decision-making skills?


----------



## james bond

Seymour Flops said:


> Hopefully someone else has already pointed out to the OP that Newton's "Law of Universal Gravity," was superseded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.


It's key to point out to the atheists and OP here that gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.  The non-believers, especially the OP, can't explain how Newton came up with his theory that became law.

Here is how.  Around the 1680s, "scientists were puzzled by the fact that bodies on earth and bodies in the heavens appeared to follow different laws. Imagine a ball rolling across a perfectly smooth and level table. It rolls forward at a constant speed in a straight line. It only slows because of air resistance and the friction between it and the table. The moon, like a ball on a flat and perfectly smooth table, keeps moving year after year without slowing. However, the moon does not travel in a straight line. Instead, it circles the earth.

Why did the moon not travel in a straight line?

Isaac Newton remembered the force of the wind. Although invisible, it turned his windmill. The force of the storm had uprooted trees. He concluded that a force acts upon the moon to bend its straight-line path into a closed orbit. What was the unknown force?

One day an apple fell from the tree overhead and banged onto Isaac's worktable in the orchard. He picked up the apple. As he held it, he noticed the moon, which had risen in the east.

Could it be, Isaac asked, that the moon and the apple are both subject to the same force of gravity? Isaac proved that gravity acts on both the apple and the moon He showed that earth's gravity extends far out into space and controls the moon in its orbit."

One can just ignore people like the OP as they do not really say anything by trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's key to point out to the atheists and OP here that gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.  The non-believers, especially the OP, can't explain how Newton came up with his theory that became law.
> 
> Here is how.  Around the 1680s, "scientists were puzzled by the fact that bodies on earth and bodies in the heavens appeared to follow different laws. Imagine a ball rolling across a perfectly smooth and level table. It rolls forward at a constant speed in a straight line. It only slows because of air resistance and the friction between it and the table. The moon, like a ball on a flat and perfectly smooth table, keeps moving year after year without slowing. However, the moon does not travel in a straight line. Instead, it circles the earth.
> 
> Why did the moon not travel in a straight line?
> 
> Isaac Newton remembered the force of the wind. Although invisible, it turned his windmill. The force of the storm had uprooted trees. He concluded that a force acts upon the moon to bend its straight-line path into a closed orbit. What was the unknown force?
> 
> One day an apple fell from the tree overhead and banged onto Isaac's worktable in the orchard. He picked up the apple. As he held it, he noticed the moon, which had risen in the east.
> 
> Could it be, Isaac asked, that the moon and the apple are both subject to the same force of gravity? Isaac proved that gravity acts on both the apple and the moon He showed that earth's gravity extends far out into space and controls the moon in its orbit."
> 
> One can just ignore people like the OP as they do not really say anything by trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.



“…gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.”

Is that what they teach you at the Benny Hinn Madrassah?


----------



## Clyde 154

Hollie said:


> Nothing in that angry, petulant rant does anything to support a silly supernatural creation argument. I’m under no obligation to refute some “creation model of biogenesis” because just like the “*General Theory of Supernatural Creation” *it is never offered.
> 
> I’m never surprised at how quickly those who insist supernaturalism is a viable argument recoil in shocked surprise and angry tirades when they’re tasked with supporting their claims to gods, magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> As to objectivity, that’s an interesting subject as nothing in claims to gods and supernaturalism can be judged by objective measures. What are the objective standards for claims to supernaturalism? I think it’s pretty clear that nothing in your responses has been presented in a way to support your claims. Your tirade does nothing to define what some “creation model of biogenesis”, is. You offer literally no evidence for “creation model of biogenesis”, yet you choose to believe that unquestioningly and launch into angry tirades when you’re tasked with defending it. What does that say about your objective decision-making skills?



Once again........"all hat, no cowgirl".   Meaning you are pretending to be something you are not............intelligent.

Same ole same ole..........wash, repeat, rinse   Left wing personal attacks based upon Circular Reasoning.......repeat the same bigoted Bull Shit enough and it becomes truth.  Again.....why have you presented no Application of Science that refutes Pasteur's Experiment that demonstrates that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life of the same species?  Because you cannot.  Why have you presented no Application of Science that refutes the Creation model presented in Genesis 1:20-28, that just happens to agree with the Science Experiment that has been conducted by men such as Pasteur?

Easy peasy.........YOU CANNOT produce evidence that falsifies Pasteur any more than you can produce evidence through an Application of Science that confirms your guild's position that LIFE spontaneously generated from dead matter naturally.

You don't believe that or teach that.......spontaneous generation? So..........if life did not spontaneously generate from non living matter...then by logic and reason there is only 1 explanation ..............life was a product of CREATION.  There is no deflection to move on from an unsound foundation (evolution from dead matter into life)........to the penthouse because you can't explain your own theory as logical truth.  A common deflection by Darwinian Cultists.  I can't prove spontaneous generation......but IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED because evolution is true.   Circular Reasoning. 

Thus.......the continued personal attack triade like a child who claims its dog ate his/her homework.  

Look through this thread........you will see no presentation of actual science form your Darwinian Cult members.....you will see nothing but parroted and pasted OPINIONS that are based upon SUBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHY that you demand of others to blindly accept as science.

Once again, God has you characters pegged to perfection, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.  Because that which can be known of God is manifest in them (the creation of life without scientific explanation);  for God has showed it unto them.  For the invisible things of Him is clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead;  so they are without excuse...........PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE THEY BECAME FOOLS............"

I will bend to your greatness if you can explain where the energy came from that you claim started the Universe and all that exists therein through random violence and chaos without intelligent design.

Are you smarter than Hawking?  Who claimed at last..........because He hated God so much for his life circumstances that he stated, "The Universe must have created itself from nothing.......because of Gravity".  FYI:  Gravity is something rather than nothing because its measurable and quantifiable due to its OBSERVABLE (first rule of science...observation)....."potential".

Fools repeat the same thing over and over........ad nauseam and still sound as a bellowing bull.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “…gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.”
> 
> Is that what they teach you at the Benny Hinn Madrassah?


Macroevolution or evo is a lie just like atheism is a lie.  It's not good enough to be in science, nor be a hypothesis; That's what creation science teaches me.


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Are lies really worth addressing when they have been previously addressed AD NAUSEM?   As I stated you pseudo characters deal only in Circular Logic.........you keep repeating the same Bull Sh...........that has been refuted by Applied Science time and time again under the pretention that if you keep repeating yourself it someone becomes truth.
> 
> You cannot present any FACTS of SCIENCE as determined by the Scientific Method of "observable", "reproducible", consistent experimentation.....that refutes the Creation model and verifies your false premise of a self created physical universe that defies the very laws of physics, to include the Laws of Causality, the Laws of Theromodynamics etc.,
> 
> And then you attempt tell everyone that intelligently designed life evolved from non living matter thru acts of violent explosions and chaos, which is falsified in every attempt to verify that false premise through Applied Science.
> 
> Where and when has life been reproduced in the lab through scientific experiment,  that does not use pre-existing life as a starting point?  Its always some lame ass excuse......the atmosphere was different......and it can't be reproduced,  when in reality you or your guilt have no idea what type of atmosphere existed because Science requires OBSERVATION not speculation and assumption of a constant Universe having existed the same eons' ago as it exists today.  (as assumed in using Radio Carbon Dating....when simple water leeching can drastically change the final data and projected dates).  Its not like the Science of Archaeology has determined that every inch of earth's land masses have been under water at some point in their history.


See, ClydeN can't answer me. He's taken a powder twice, and even when does 'respond' to me or anyone else that are Not/Never on point.

He is Incapable of Linear topical debate. (quoting and answering a several sentence point directly)

*All of ClydeN's posts are Lunatical Rants about his beefs with Liberals, Atheists, Materialism, etc, etc, and spouting Bible verses and emptily declaring holiness/divinity. He may quote you, but he doesn't answer you. Every post is just a launching pad for his beefs with the (real) world.*

He's a Brainwashed/Indoctrinated Freak who needs to be in an Institution. (and may be in one)

`


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Once again........"all hat, no cowgirl".   Meaning you are pretending to be something you are not............intelligent.
> 
> Same ole same ole..........wash, repeat, rinse   Left wing personal attacks based upon Circular Reasoning.......repeat the same bigoted Bull Shit enough and it becomes truth.  Again.....why have you presented no Application of Science that refutes Pasteur's Experiment that demonstrates that life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life of the same species?  Because you cannot.  Why have you presented no Application of Science that refutes the Creation model presented in Genesis 1:20-28, that just happens to agree with the Science Experiment that has been conducted by men such as Pasteur?
> 
> Easy peasy.........YOU CANNOT produce evidence that falsifies Pasteur any more than you can produce evidence through an Application of Science that confirms your guild's position that LIFE spontaneously generated from dead matter naturally.
> 
> You don't believe that or teach that.......spontaneous generation? So..........if life did not spontaneously generate from non living matter...then by logic and reason there is only 1 explanation ..............life was a product of CREATION.  There is no deflection to move on from an unsound foundation (evolution from dead matter into life)........to the penthouse because you can't explain your own theory as logical truth.  A common deflection by Darwinian Cultists.  I can't prove spontaneous generation......but IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED because evolution is true.   Circular Reasoning.
> 
> Thus.......the continued personal attack triade like a child who claims its dog ate his/her homework.
> 
> Look through this thread........you will see no presentation of actual science form your Darwinian Cult members.....you will see nothing but parroted and pasted OPINIONS that are based upon SUBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHY that you demand of others to blindly accept as science.
> 
> Once again, God has you characters pegged to perfection, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, WHO HOLD THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.  Because that which can be known of God is manifest in them (the creation of life without scientific explanation);  for God has showed it unto them.  For the invisible things of Him is clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead;  so they are without excuse...........PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE THEY BECAME FOOLS............"
> 
> I will bend to your greatness if you can explain where the energy came from that you claim started the Universe and all that exists therein through random violence and chaos without intelligent design.
> 
> Are you smarter than Hawking?  Who claimed at last..........because He hated God so much for his life circumstances that he stated, "The Universe must have created itself from nothing.......because of Gravity".  FYI:  Gravity is something rather than nothing because its measurable and quantifiable due to its OBSERVABLE (first rule of science...observation)....."potential".
> 
> Fools repeat the same thing over and over........ad nauseam and still sound as a bellowing bull.


That was a lot of cutting and pasting from your last rant. It apparently sailed past you that once again, you failed to offer anything to support your claims to supernatural gods.

The "Darwin cult" rhetoric is pretty typical from the science deniers / science loathing types. In the time since publication of "Origin of Species", the TOE has only become better supported. With advancements in the biological sciences, paleontology, chemistry, etc., the methods of analysis have become more exacting. This enrages the angry fundamentalists and leaves them with no options but to thump their bibles and increase their strident wailing.

It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy, selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

Secondly, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." This, of course, is contrary to the claim by ID/ creationists that supernaturalism is the as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or magic. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

So, once again, we're left to expecting your "_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation'*_' as a counter to the existence of diversity of life on the planet and you still are unable to
'show us the magic''.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Macroevolution or evo is a lie just like atheism is a lie.  It's not good enough to be in science, nor be a hypothesis; That's what creation science teaches me.


Gravity is different from evolution. You might try the Jimmy Swaggert Madrassah to see if they can explain the concepts of a scientific theory and a law. 

Perhaps they teach those concepts after the biblical proofs of a Flat Earth


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> You are yet to prove anything I presented to be a falsehood.   As I have said many times, you can sprinkle sugar on a pile of feces but that does not make it candy.  You have not falsified the CREATION MODEL of biogenesis..........you have not presented evidence of how the known universe created itself from nothing, when science proves that when you begin with nothing, nothing is all you will ever have............you have not presented/applied any science in proving that man evolved from fish as claimed.
> 
> Question?  WHAT CREDIBILITY are you speaking of when you speak of UNIVERSTY teaching?
> 
> That's some REAL SCIENCE you are presenting your greatness..........your skills of writing with articulation reveal your true educational status.  You can't hide from your "ID".   What?  You are about 15, 16?  You demonstrate the skills of a middle schooler.  My Bad.........hell, this is modern America, you could hold a PhD and your reading and comprehension skills would be at an 8th grade level if you are a product of public education.
> 
> ID, Super Ego, and Ego.  You can't hide from that which you do not possess........intelligence.  That's why the majority of you left wing nuts PARROT AND PASTE the skills of others while pretending to be smart.
> 
> Dumb downed democrats are dangerous, they actually believe they are intelligent, that's why the US stands at 30th place among world peers in math and science comprehension skills behind nations such as Hungry and the Slovak Republic....
> 
> You know the  department where the U.S. leads the world in education?  MONEY SPENT. OPM (the democrat favorite, other peoples money)  The US averages spending over 16K per student per year, when rest of the world averages but 10K per student per year, those other 30 nations ahead of the US in actual skills learned vs. skills attempted to be taught.   Hell.........someone has to make inept teacher's jobs secure through the union, and who would pay for all those political adds if the tax payers were not being conned?


Prove you are false ? Why should I even address made up shit. Really, when You disagree with every university in the world, it’s you who have to provide proof…All I hear is made up shit.


----------



## Dagosa

Hollie said:


> “…gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.”
> 
> Is that what they teach you at the Benny Hinn Madrassah?


Our hero labels everyone who disagrees with him as an atheist. I guess he’s not a Catholic.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> No comprehension skills?  You know that is an indication that you have no COMMON SENSE?  You keep presenting "circular logic", repeating the same lame ass argument over and over as if repeating it makes it true.  I can see why you believe in a universe that created itself from nothing (magic)......or attempt to teach that FISH morphed into man over billions of years........WITHOUT presenting any OBJECTIVE evidence to support your lack of horse sense.
> 
> Or your logic or lack thereof............CONSENSUS (Accolade)..........everyone else accepts it, I simply get on the band wagon.  I don't want my wittle liberal feelings hurt.
> 
> You have presented no OBJETIVE EVIDENCE that passes the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistency via applied experimentation that ends with FACTS in evidence.  Just like all liberals.......you are nothing but MOUTH.   Its others that don't understand because you are better, YOU ARE EDUCATED........condesending rhetoric
> 
> You know......a monkey can be taught to beat on a piano keyboard but that does not make him Mozart.   Your education amounts to what you have been taught.  If you  are taught untruths....then your supposed superior education is worthless in THE REAL WORLD.  As for Me I have a degree in Applied Science and Technology.   Just how many more "unemployed" social workers or teachers does the world need?


Who in their right mind thinks having “ common sense” is going to mean you know more  then literally, every accredited university and major corporation in the world. Gee, that means you have no sense what so ever. 
BTW, Fix News is an enclave for drop outs if that’s where you get these strange ideas.


----------



## Seymour Flops

james bond said:


> It's key to point out to the atheists and OP here that gravity is a _law_ and not a theory.  The non-believers, especially the OP, can't explain how Newton came up with his theory that became law.
> 
> Here is how.  Around the 1680s, "scientists were puzzled by the fact that bodies on earth and bodies in the heavens appeared to follow different laws. Imagine a ball rolling across a perfectly smooth and level table. It rolls forward at a constant speed in a straight line. It only slows because of air resistance and the friction between it and the table. The moon, like a ball on a flat and perfectly smooth table, keeps moving year after year without slowing. However, the moon does not travel in a straight line. Instead, it circles the earth.
> 
> Why did the moon not travel in a straight line?
> 
> Isaac Newton remembered the force of the wind. Although invisible, it turned his windmill. The force of the storm had uprooted trees. He concluded that a force acts upon the moon to bend its straight-line path into a closed orbit. What was the unknown force?
> 
> One day an apple fell from the tree overhead and banged onto Isaac's worktable in the orchard. He picked up the apple. As he held it, he noticed the moon, which had risen in the east.
> 
> Could it be, Isaac asked, that the moon and the apple are both subject to the same force of gravity? Isaac proved that gravity acts on both the apple and the moon He showed that earth's gravity extends far out into space and controls the moon in its orbit."
> 
> One can just ignore people like the OP as they do not really say anything by trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.


True enough.

We have to keep in mind that Newton's theory of gravity as being similar to, or at least analogous to magnetism, but universal and not just working on ferrous matter has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory, which states that mass warps the geometry of surrounding space-time.  Of course, that is only a theory and may or may not be superseded by another, more advanced theory.

Point being - and I wasn't clear on it before - that citing a scientific theory that has been accepted for hundreds of years as a counter to those who propose a supernatural/religious explanation for the origins of the Universe and life on Earth misunderstands both science and religion.


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Prove you are false ? Why should I even address made up shit. Really, when You disagree with every university in the world, it’s you who have to provide proof…All I hear is made up shit.



Its you that makes a claim of working with facts as applied by science.  And then you ask Why........................ 
Prove you are false?  Really? (that's some science you are working with).

 Science is required to either "verify" or "falsify" a Hypothesis.  Its YOU that claim to be working with science.  Again......demanding that you apply science and prove your false hypothesis concerning the origins as life as defined by YOUR SCIENCE (supposedly life "evolved" from non-living matter........naturally)......while demanding that you "falsify" Pasteur's model by APPLYING the very science that you claim as truth, is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. 

You demand that everyone stay within the confines of "Theoretical Science"..........which amounts to nothing other than pseudo science based entirely upon "unsystematic observations" as assumed or speculated to be true (Prima Facie).  Talk about the kettle calling the kettle black.     You claim UP is DOWN, NORTH is SOUTH........based upon nothing but Philosophy.  That which exists only in the human mind.

But you refuse to engage the Scientific Method to your "hypothesis" (its not worthy of being called a theory........because abiogenesis is falsified every time its placed to the test of the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistent Experimentation that demonstrates FACT).   I wonder why YOU REFUSE to actually apply science to your claims? 

What a load of total Bullshit.   All along this thread you Darwinian Cultists claim that the theory of Evolution is a fact of science.......yet the laws of physics demonstrate there is no "LAW OF EVOLUTION" as claimed because every time Science is Applied to the claim its falsified by the Law of Biogenesis.

Law of Biogenesis:  Stands as a Law.........until falsified by the Scientific Method based on "Empirical Evidence" not unsystematic observation.  There is no organization to your theory if your BASIC TENET (the foundation) Abiogenesis cannot be verified by Applying Science in an empirical method.

A fact of science can be verified by Applying Science.  A theory stands only as an idea based upon "unsystematic" observation.....i.e, better known as a type of Philosophy.......human thinking.

THERE IS NO "LAW OF EVOULTION".......if there is, present the applied science that empirically proves it.

Its a simple question.  As someone that is supposedly WORKING WITH SCIENCE you should be more than willing to use science to support your hypothesis.  Yet, instead...........you become angrered and personally attack anyone that challenges your false premises.   Priceless and the quint esstential response by all Darwinian Cultists.


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Its you that makes a claim of working with facts as applied by science.  And then you ask Why........................
> Prove you are false?  Really? (that's some science you are working with).
> 
> Science is required to either "verify" or "falsify" a Hypothesis.  Its YOU that claim to be working with science.  Again......demanding that you apply science and prove your false hypothesis concerning the origins as life as defined by YOUR SCIENCE (supposedly life "evolved" from non-living matter........naturally)......while demanding that you "falsify" Pasteur's model by APPLYING the very science that you claim as truth, is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.  You demand that everyone stays within the confines of "Theoretical Science"..........which a nothing but a pseudo science based entirely upon "unsystematic observation" as assumed or speculated to be true (Prima Facie).  Talk about the kettle calling the kettle black.     You claim UP is DOWN, NORTH is SOUTH........based upon nothing but Philosophy.  That which exists only in the human mind.
> 
> But you refuse to engage the Scientific Method to your "hypothesis" (its not worthy of being called a theory........because abiogenesis is falsified every time its placed to the test of the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistent Experimentation that demonstrates FACT).   I wonder why YOU REFUSE to actual apply science to your claims?
> 
> What a load of total Bullshit.   All along this thread you Darwinian Cultists claim that the theory of Evolution is a fact of science.......yet the laws of physics demonstrate there is no "LAW OF EVOLUTION" as claimed because every time Science is Applied to the claim its falsified by the Law of Biogenesis.
> 
> Law of Biogenesis:  Stands as a Law.........until falsified by the Scientific Method based on "Empirical Evidence"


Sorry, all for nothing. I’m not reading all that made up shit. But keep posting if you think anyone cares.


----------



## Clyde 154

Dagosa said:


> Sorry, all for nothing. I’m not reading all that made up shit. But keep posting if you think anyone cares.


Yeah.......no empirical evidence to support your "hypothesis"?  Of course you will not present your evidence that proves that Evolution is a LAW, because.........it does not exist.  Game over.  Run away and hide......just like all cultists do.  

Yeah.........its the Law of Biogenesis that is "MADE UP" (that contradicts your basic tenet...of abiogenesis)........of course everyone knows that Louis Pasteur is just a figment of everyone's imagination.  There is no such requirement of Science to deal in empirical evidences.....that's made up also.

You present nothing other than unsystematic observation with no organization but its others who make shit up........


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah.......no empirical evidence to support your "hypothesis"?  Of course you will not present your evidence that proves that Evolution is a LAW, because.........it does not exist.  Game over.  Run away and hide......just like all cultists do.
> 
> Yeah.........its the Law of Biogenesis that is "MADE UP"........of course everyone knows that Louis Pasteur is just a figment of everyone's imagination.  There is no such requirement of Science to deal in empirical evidences.....that's made up also.


Well, you’re down to two paragraphs. When any make sense, we’ll read it all.
Seriously, “ Evolution is a law “ ? ……where did you get that BS. It’s a “theory” righty..
Round and round we go, right back to illiteracy because you can’t/won’t  read. Amazing.
You still don’t know what a “theory” is in science do you ? You don’t seem to  know what a “law“ is either. All you have to do is look it and READ IT. Confused little puppy .


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> Its you that makes a claim of working with facts as applied by science.  And then you ask Why........................
> Prove you are false?  Really? (that's some science you are working with).
> 
> Science is required to either "verify" or "falsify" a Hypothesis.  Its YOU that claim to be working with science.  Again......demanding that you apply science and prove your false hypothesis concerning the origins as life as defined by YOUR SCIENCE (supposedly life "evolved" from non-living matter........naturally)......while demanding that you "falsify" Pasteur's model by APPLYING the very science that you claim as truth, is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
> 
> You demand that everyone stay within the confines of "Theoretical Science"..........which amounts to nothing other than pseudo science based entirely upon "unsystematic observations" as assumed or speculated to be true (Prima Facie).  Talk about the kettle calling the kettle black.     You claim UP is DOWN, NORTH is SOUTH........based upon nothing but Philosophy.  That which exists only in the human mind.
> 
> But you refuse to engage the Scientific Method to your "hypothesis" (its not worthy of being called a theory........because abiogenesis is falsified every time its placed to the test of the scientific method of Observation, Reproduction, and Consistent Experimentation that demonstrates FACT).   I wonder why YOU REFUSE to actually apply science to your claims?
> 
> What a load of total Bullshit.   All along this thread you Darwinian Cultists claim that the theory of Evolution is a fact of science.......yet the laws of physics demonstrate there is no "LAW OF EVOLUTION" as claimed because every time Science is Applied to the claim its falsified by the Law of Biogenesis.
> 
> Law of Biogenesis:  Stands as a Law.........until falsified by the Scientific Method based on "Empirical Evidence" not unsystematic observation.  There is no organization to your theory if your BASIC TENET (the foundation) Abiogenesis cannot be verified by Applying Science in an empirical method.
> 
> A fact of science can be verified by Applying Science.  A theory stands only as an idea based upon "unsystematic" observation.....i.e, better known as a type of Philosophy.......human thinking.
> 
> THERE IS NO "LAW OF EVOULTION".......if there is, present the applied science that empirically proves it.
> 
> Its a simple question.  As someone that is supposedly WORKING WITH SCIENCE you should be more than willing to use science to support your hypothesis.  Yet, instead...........you become angrered and personally attack anyone that challenges your false premises.   Priceless and the quint esstential response by all Darwinian Cultists.


The so-called law of biogenesis is really a ''law'' you should be discussing with your peers at the various fundamentalist creation ministries. Those are the places which press that ''law'' label. 

Is this where you copy and paste that nonsense from?





__





						Creation Science Today - Biological Scientific Evidence for Creation: Law of Biogenesis/Origins
					

The major problem for evolutionists is the origin of life from nonlife and a mechanism for an  expanding, more complex gene pool. No one has ever observed or demonstrated spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things. Biogenesis describes a process whereby living organisms can only arise...



					creationsciencetoday.com


----------



## abu afak

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah.......no empirical evidence to support your "hypothesis"?  Of course you will not present your evidence that proves that Evolution is a LAW, because.........it does not exist.  Game over.  Run away and hide......just like all cultists do.
> 
> Yeah.........its the Law of Biogenesis that is "MADE UP" (that contradicts your basic tenet...of abiogenesis)........of course everyone knows that Louis Pasteur is just a figment of everyone's imagination.  There is no such requirement of Science to deal in empirical evidences.....that's made up also.
> 
> You present nothing other than unsystematic observation with no organization but its others who make shit up........


:^)

You didn't/don't know what a 'scientific theory' (vs common usage 'theory') and you don't know what a "law" is either!!

*YOU CANNOT ANSWER MY FACT-FILLED POSTS WITH EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION AND POINTING OUT YOU HAVE NONE FOR GOD/ANY GOD.
YOU LOST (multiple exchanges) AND HAD TO STOP RESPONDING.*

On to your new Bungle:

Scientific Theory vs Law​David Pfeiffer - Jan 30, 2017 ·

*"There is a common Misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that the scientific definition of the word is different than the English definition. *In this article we define both terms and compare the two definitions. We then apply these definitions to the definition of the scientific method. Finally, we use these definitions to argue that science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.
[.....]
[.....]








						Scientific Theory vs Law
					

There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is largely due to the fact that…




					medium.com
				




You cannot debate, just PONTIFicate/Defecate.
`


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Gravity is different from evolution. You might try the Jimmy Swaggert Madrassah to see if they can explain the concepts of a scientific theory and a law.
> 
> Perhaps they teach those concepts after the biblical proofs of a Flat Earth


You still get everything mixed up in your explanations.  You can get gravity wrong in a test, but you can't help but obey the law of gravity.  It's too bad that you can't obey the law of Christ the same way.  It would change your life.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You still get everything mixed up in your explanations.  You can get gravity wrong in a test, but you can't help but obey the law of gravity.  It's too bad that you can't obey the law of Christ the same way.  It would change your life.


As usual, you're bringing your Bible thumping to the wrong forum


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You still get everything mixed up in your explanations.  You can get gravity wrong in a test, but you can't help but obey the law of gravity.  It's too bad that you can't obey the law of Christ the same way.  It would change your life.


Is this from the same Bible that keeps referring to the four corners (of a flat earth.)
Nice “ law”. Btw, what “law” are you referring to ? Anything in particular in mind or are we just making up stuff.,


----------



## Dagosa

Clyde 154 said:


> Yeah.......no empirical evidence to support your "hypothesis"?  Of course you will not present your evidence that proves that Evolution is a LAW, because.........it does not exist.  Game over.  Run away and hide......just like all cultists do.
> 
> Yeah.........its the Law of Biogenesis that is "MADE UP" (that contradicts your basic tenet...of abiogenesis)........of course everyone knows that Louis Pasteur is just a figment of everyone's imagination.  There is no such requirement of Science to deal in empirical evidences.....that's made up also.
> 
> You present nothing other than unsystematic observation with no organization but its others who make shit up........


Seriously, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I bet you don’t even know what biogenesis supports  do you ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Of course you will not present your evidence that proves that Evolution is a LAW, because


...because that is a moronic request. And you saying this immediately reveals to everyone that you have no idea how science works or what laws and theories are.

Seriously, if you said this, you would get laughed out of a room of college science students.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> just like atheism is a lie.


How is a belief, a lie ? A brief in a particular god, isn’t a lie, it’s just unsupported foolishness. .


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> Hopefully someone else has already pointed out to the OP that Newton's "Law of Universal Gravity," was superseded by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.


The "Principle" to Newton has never been "superseded" for anything other than things approaching the speed of light. Think how often you've actually made use of the former as opposed to the latter. The latter reducing to the former for 99.9% of practical applications hardly suggests being replaced.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> It should be pointed out that Darwin’s "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.
> 
> First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy, selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.


Beautifully put. Your use of "fields" has provided me a new avenue of thought. The word "science," having always just suggested "study (of)" to me, can now go deeper. Study of what? Fields. Fields of study or study of fields. Works either way. This is where atomists go wrong. Fields are actually what's fundamental. Let the troglodytes keep masturbating given any mention of "particles." The science of electricity remains vastly unexamined.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> How is a belief, a lie ? A brief in a particular god, isn’t a lie, it’s just unsupported foolishness. .


A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as _unsupported_ foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their _conviction_ that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.


----------



## abu afak

Quote from a friend:

"To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.
*
To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."

The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.*

However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​`


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> The "Principle" to Newton has never been "superseded" for anything other than things approaching the speed of light. Think how often you've actually made use of the former as opposed to the latter. The latter reducing to the former for 99.9% of practical applications hardly suggests being replaced.


I think you are not entirely well-informed about that speed of light business.  Do you have a link?

Einstein's General Theory has been proven right in every experiment, and has been shown to explain discrepancies between Newton's theory and observed events, such as the orbit of Mercury (which moves far slower than 99.9% of the speed of light).

*On May 29, 1919, the world changed forever. For hundreds of years, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity — the law of universal gravitation — had gone unchallenged, as its predictions matched every observation or measurement that had ever been made. But a mismatch between Newton's predictions for the orbit of Mercury and what astronomers saw surfaced in the mid-19th century, and scientists struggled to explain it.

Perhaps we needed to modify the laws of gravity, after all. Evidence mounted when special relativity came out, demonstrating that there was no such thing as absolute distance. Newton's theory predicted an instantaneous force, again violating relativity. In 1915, Albert Einstein put forth a new alternative theory of gravity: General Relativity. The way to test it against Newton's theory was to wait for a total solar eclipse. 100 years ago today, Einstein was proven right. Here's how.*









						This Is How, 100 Years Ago, A Solar Eclipse Proved Einstein Right And Newton Wrong
					

The solar eclipse of May 29, 1919, was the nail in the coffin of a Newtonian Universe.




					www.forbes.com
				




At one time the Heliocentric model of the Universe seemed to match observations and measurements, but it - like Newton's Theory - has been superseded by other theories.

Since Einstein's General Theory is the one that has not been refuted or superseded, it is the one I make use of.  I don't make use of any theory that requires that gravity be an instantaneous force, with no regard for distance.

In fact, other than debates such as this, I rarely "make use" of Einstein's theories.  If I, or anyone else, prefer to think of my body as a magnet and the earth as a giant ferrous ball and that's why I stick to it, no harm is done.  If I want to think that the moon and sun go around Earth, no harm no foul, unless I'm trying to predict lunar eclipses or some other solar astronomy.  If I see maggots appear on a dead animal and think that life was spontaneously generated from non-life (a key tenet of evolutionary theory), no harm to me, unless I'm claiming such nonsense to be "settled science."  

So long as none of those things are taught as scientific dogma in public schools, what do I care?

Truth be told (and shouldn't it always), even Einstein's theories should not be taught as scientific dogma in public schools.  Who knows when or by what Einstein's theories will be superseded?  We should always be willing to "admit," or better yet, _proudly state_, that scientific knowledge is ever-changing and that it is unlikely that we will ever reach a final, unchangeable, conclusion.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as _unsupported_ foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their _conviction_ that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.


So, which of the six or seven gods should we believe in to keep from living a lie ? Pick one out. There are six or seven major religions, each with their own version of a god. Which ones is it ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> A belief in atheism is a lie as you just explained it as _unsupported_ foolishness. However, support doesn't really have anything to do with this belief. With the atheists, it just has to do with their _conviction_ that evolution is true. Otherwise, it would've been validated already like we have the Holy Bible, Jesus came to die for our sins and how the universe, Earth and everything in it exists. I would want at least a history from the atheists here.


Which god does one have to believe in ?
Are you saying you have to be a Christian to avoid being an atheist ? That would leave 7 billion people in the world who are atheist.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> Quote from a friend:
> 
> "To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.​​*To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."*​​*The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.*​​However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​`


Gee, I contend that anyone who doesn’t believe   in any god, is “almost” a Christian. A Christian  doesn’t beleive in the dozen or so other gods. An atheist is  just one “ non belief” of all the gods away from them.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> I think you are not entirely well-informed about that speed of light business. Do you have a link?


Well that's a weird complement. I'll take it. And no, no link, just consider it my informed deduction.


> Einstein's General Theory has been proven right in every experiment


They all say that and clearly love to, but just think about it once. No one screwed it up? Ever? Even by accident? C'mon.. I just did an experiment.. guess what? Can you say "propaganda"? I knew you could. So Einstein cooked up some decent equations from others' works. Big deal. He said lots of stupid things as well.


> and has been shown to explain discrepancies between Newton's theory and observed events, such as the orbit of Mercury (which moves far slower than 99.9% of the speed of light).


Yep, so what? Prior to "the mid-19th century" _nobody_ gave a crap. It was 100% useless information. When's the last time you needed to know the exact orbit of Mercury? Has knowing it now ever put food on your family?


> Since Einstein's General Theory is the one that has not been refuted or superseded, it is the one I make use of. I don't make use of any theory that requires that gravity be an instantaneous force, with no regard for distance.


Knock, knock, Einstein. Newton's theory also "regards" distance and how many people could actually give a shit less whether gravity is "an instantaneous force" or not? Look, we've read and were taught the same crap, okay? I have no desire to argue this stuff with you. Been there, done that enough times already. If you're happy with your mainstream beliefs, great. Enjoy & Peace.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Quote from a friend:
> 
> "To call Atheism a Religion is to call bald a hair color.​​*To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."*​​*The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.*​​However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around."​`


The proof is starting with faith in God.  However, that's not possible with atheists, so the proof is unfortunately in the death of atheists.  

BTW I agree bald isn't a hair color, but most started to grow hair after birth and that's was their hair color.  Thus, how did you start with the religion of atheism with no evidence for it?  I think it's because you didn't want to bow down and obey an ultimate authority.

That said, my goal is to learn and explain creation science.  It isn't to convert atheists or anyone to Christianity although it would be considered grace for them as salvation leads to grace.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *The proof is starting with faith in God.*  However, that's not possible with atheists, so the proof is unfortunately in the death of atheists.  BTW bald isn't a hair color, but most started to grow hair after birth and that's was their hair color.  Thus, how did you start with the religion of atheism with no evidence for it?  I think it's because you didn't want to bow down and obey an ultimate authority.


"Proof" doesn't start with faith, it starts with facts.
That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.

`


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The proof is starting with faith .......


That’s hilarious. “Faith” is acceptance without proof. So, you’re asking people to accept something with no proof. Trump’s motto.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> Well that's a weird complement. I'll take it. And no, no link, just consider it my informed deduction.


Then I'll take it for what it's worth.


Grumblenuts said:


> They all say that and clearly love to, but just think about it once. No one screwed it up? Ever? Even by accident? C'mon.. I just did an experiment.. guess what? Can you say "propaganda"? I knew you could. So Einstein cooked up some decent equations from others' works. Big deal. He said lots of stupid things as well.


Far be it from me to debate someone who is so smart that Einstein seems stupid.


Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, so what? Prior to "the mid-19th century" _nobody_ gave a crap. It was 100% useless information. When's the last time you needed to know the exact orbit of Mercury? Has knowing it now ever put food on your family?


No, but you were the one who asked me which theory I "made use of."


Grumblenuts said:


> Knock, knock, Einstein. Newton's theory also "regards" distance and how many people could actually give a shit less whether gravity is "an instantaneous force" or not? Look, we've read and were taught the same crap, okay? I have no desire to argue this stuff with you. Been there, done that enough times already. If you're happy with your mainstream beliefs, great. Enjoy & Peace.


I'm happy with the most current scientific theory.  But I recognize the difference between theory and fact.

Did you have a point with this whole "gravity is just a theory thread?"


----------



## Grumblenuts

Not my thread, Einstein.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> Far be it from me to debate someone who is so smart that Einstein seems stupid.


You can also take it from Tesla:


> “Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”​― Nikola Tesla


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> "Proof" doesn't start with faith, it starts with facts.
> That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
> In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.
> 
> `


Lol.  You do not understand the subject, as usual.  With God, it starts with faith.  For facts and history, all you have to do is read the Holy Bible.

That's why I bring up creation science vs evolution (atheist science).  Now, I have science on my side.  You act all high, mighty and knowledgeable but cannot present any facts for evolution.  Thus, I win with one post and relegate you to the bowels of the Earth where you and atheists belong.

>>That's why you have no basis and no business on a message board, except for a religious one.
In one sentence you destroyed yourself. (beyond your thousands of other doing the same.<<

Mwahahaha.  You can flush yourself down and end up in the bowels _right now_.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Lol. You do not understand the subject, as usual. With God, it starts with faith. For facts and history, all you have to do is read the Holy Bible.


Hilarious. The Bible is made up shit from the upper class to control the masses. It’s the same incredible  disease that inflicts the white conservative Christian today. Let’s worship  the rich .


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> That’s hilarious. “Faith” is acceptance without proof. So, you’re asking people to accept something with no proof. Trump’s motto.


That's with God, not science or humans.  Anyway, it leads to creation and science and facts and history in the Bible backed up by science.  I lmao because you and atheists accept evolution without any proof and that's supposed to be science.  Why are you such a hypocrite to your S&I statement above?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Hilarious. The Bible is made up shit from the upper class to control the masses.


Where do you get "made up shit from the upper class?"  How can it be made up when science and history backs it up?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> That's with God, not science or humans.  Anyway, it leads to creation and science and facts and history in the Bible backed up by science.  I lmao because you and atheists accept evolution without any proof and that's supposed to be science.  Why are you such a hypocrite to your S&I statement above?


You have yet to answer the question. Which god are you worshiping ?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You have yet to answer the question. Which gods are you worshiping ?


The God of the Bible and the Trinity -- God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

ETA:  My purpose in S&I isn't to discuss proof of God, but to show creation science.  Now, I can show proof of it with secular ways and not have to say, "God did it."

Here's an example.  Noah's or global flood was created as "on this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up . . ." (Genesis 7:11).  We find "ocean springs off Ecuador's coast that proved that such large bodies of water do indeed contains fountains spewing liquids."  The big evidence is we learned about plate tectonics from creationist Alfred Wegener.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Where do you get "made up shit from the upper class?"  How can it be made up when science and history backs it up?


Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science. Hypocrite ? That’s you. You eat food  everyday that has been genetically altered to evolve into foods that serve our needs better.
The Modern  cow was bred into existance  using selective breeding……natural selection.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Where do you get "made up shit from the upper class?"  How can it be made up when science and history backs it up?


There is no such thing as creation science. It’s just another made up phrase to pretend your god has a degree in BS.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The God of the Bible and the Trinity -- God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ETA:  My purpose in S&I isn't to discuss proof of God, but to show creation science.  Now, I can show proof of it with secular ways and not have to say, "God did it."


Blah,blah, blah. You claim you can show proof…..but you never have.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The God of the Bible and the Trinity -- God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ETA:  My purpose in S&I isn't to discuss proof of God, but to show creation science.  Now, I can show proof of it with secular ways and not have to say, "God did it."


"Cretin science" is not science. It's religious doctrine with the purpose of railing against science by pressing an agenda of Christian fundamentalism.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science. Hypocrite ? That’s you. You eat food  everyday that has been genetically altered to evolve into foods that serve our needs better.
> The Modern  cow was bred into existance  using selective breeding……natural selection.


>>Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science.<<

The universe, Earth and everything in it could not be here _just_ by science. Only God can create spacetime and tell us "how" He did it. It started with creating light (and separating it into the light part and darkness). Darwin nor any human can't touch that.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "Cretin science" is not science. It's religious doctrine with the purpose of railing against science by pressing an agenda of Christian fundamentalism.



>>Cretin science isn't even science.<<

Cretin science is your "evolution."  I'm still waiting for any evidence for it.  I know for sure Fort Fun Indiana will be punished by having to watch for millions and billions of years for the evidence.

Oh, I suppose I can see why you attack my religion, but I'm just using the Bible to point out the scientific parts.  The major parts are the beginning of spacetime and everything here on Earth including the Earth and its solar system or "Days of Creation."  Only life exists here.  Nowhere else.  Not even a single cell.  The other is the global flood.  I don't think there was any other supernatural event.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> >>Cretin science isn't even science.<<
> 
> Cretin science is your "evolution."  I'm still waiting for any evidence for it.  I know for sure Fort Fun Indiana will be punished by having to watch for millions and billions of years for the evidence.
> 
> Oh, I suppose I can see why you attack my religion, but I'm just using the Bible to point out the scientific parts.  The major parts are the beginning of spacetime and everything here on Earth including the Earth and its solar system or "Days of Creation."  Only life exists here.  Nowhere else.  Not even a single cell.  The other is the global flood.  I don't think there was any other supernatural event.


Your sidestepping confirms an inability to defend religious extremism as legitimate science. There's a reason why cretin science is the domain of Christian extremists as the fundamentalist, extremist ministries are the only locations where your brand of religious extremism is masqueaded as "science". 

There is no legitimate science that confirms a flat earth, talking animals, a young earth, etc., etc.

That's why cretin science is a laughable joke.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your sidestepping confirms an inability to defend religious extremism as legitimate science. There's a reason why cretin science is the domain of Christian extremists as the fundamentalist, extremist ministries are the only locations where your brand of religious extremism is masqueaded as "science".
> 
> There is no legitimate science that confirms a flat earth, talking animals, a young earth, etc., etc.
> 
> That's why cretin science is a laughable joke.


I'm not sidestepping anything.  First, evolution from Darwin says nothing about God nor atheism.  Very few atheists here have pointed it out.  You and the majority of atheists just criticize creation.  Natural selection points out how living organisms, animals and humans are related because they all change via

"
1) Fitness is terms of greater reproduction.
2) Genes that increase lifetime reproduction will be selected for, even if they reduce the individual’s longevity.
3) When we find something that seems like an error in natural selection, more likely we are missing some important function that compensates for the deficit.
4) Change the environment, and the gene may no longer increase fitness.
5) Natural selection arises by chance."

What creation and creationists do is how the universe, Earth, and living creatures including humans got here in the first place.  They explain why we are here, too."

Thus, it's evolution that doesn't have all the answers.  However, I think the majority of creationists do not call natural selection -- evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm not sidestepping anything.  First, evolution from Darwin says nothing about God nor atheism.  Very few atheists here have pointed it out.  You and the majority of atheists just criticize creation.  Natural selection points out how living organisms, animals and humans are related because they all change via
> 
> "
> 1) Fitness is terms of greater reproduction.
> 2) Genes that increase lifetime reproduction will be selected for, even if they reduce the individual’s longevity.
> 3) When we find something that seems like an error in natural selection, more likely we are missing some important function that compensates for the deficit.
> 4) Change the environment, and the gene may no longer increase fitness.
> 5) Natural selection arises by chance."
> 
> What creation and creationists do is how the universe, Earth, and living creatures including humans got here in the first place.  They explain why we are here, too."
> 
> Thus, it's evolution that doesn't have all the answers.  However, I think the majority of creationists do not call natural selection -- evolution.


Science says nothing about your gods or any of the other gods which preceded your gods.

Cretin'ism tells us nothing of science. 

The earth is not flat. Cretin'ism fails.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> >>Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science.<<
> 
> The universe, Earth and everything in it could not be here _just_ by science. Only God can create spacetime and tell us "how" He did it. It started with creating light (and separating it into the light part and darkness). Darwin nor any human can't touch that.


Which Bible and which god…..you’ve never said.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I'm not sidestepping anything.  First, evolution from Darwin says nothing about God nor atheism.  Very few atheists here have pointed it out.  You and the majority of atheists just criticize creation.  Natural selection points out how living organisms, animals and humans are related because they all change via
> 
> "
> 1) Fitness is terms of greater reproduction.
> 2) Genes that increase lifetime reproduction will be selected for, even if they reduce the individual’s longevity.
> 3) When we find something that seems like an error in natural selection, more likely we are missing some important function that compensates for the deficit.
> 4) Change the environment, and the gene may no longer increase fitness.
> 5) Natural selection arises by chance."
> 
> What creation and creationists do is how the universe, Earth, and living creatures including humans got here in the first place.  They explain why we are here, too."
> 
> Thus, it's evolution that doesn't have all the answers.  However, I think the majority of creationists do not call natural selection -- evolution.


You’re side stepping everything. You claim the evolution is atheism yet you won’t tell us which god we have to believe  in to keep from being atheist. Which god ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> >>Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science.<<
> 
> The universe, Earth and everything in it could not be here _just_ by science. Only God can create spacetime and tell us "how" He did it. It started with creating light (and separating it into the light part and darkness). Darwin nor any human can't touch that.


You are science illiterate. Science makes no reference to a god one way or another. You want to call everything you don’t understand as god‘s work. Well, I guarantee if you can’t repair your  cell,none and you leave it up to a god to fix, it’s not happening.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> >>Science ? ha ha. There is no part in the Bible that is supported by science.<<
> 
> The universe, Earth and everything in it could not be here _just_ by science. Only God can create spacetime and tell us "how" He did it. It started with creating light (and separating it into the light part and darkness). Darwin nor any human can't touch that.


Which god are you talking about ? You seem to be struggling with that question. You’re avoiding it.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> The God of the Bible and the Trinity -- God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit


Well, that’s BS. You’re now saying that Jews are atheist, Muslims  and every non Christian is an atheist. That’s 3/4 of the world. What about Catholics. They believe in your god and believe in evolution. They’re atheists. You have no answer do you ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Oh, I suppose I can see why you attack my religion,


We don’t even know what you’re religion is ? You don’t represent Catholics or anyother Christian who also believes in the evolution taught in the 3400 accredited universities, our military, our own govt and every related industry in the world….that practices medicine produces  food or has half a brain.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I'm not sidestepping anything.  First, evolution from Darwin says nothing about God nor atheism.  Very few atheists here have pointed it out.  You and the majority of atheists just criticize creation.  Natural selection points out how living organisms, animals and humans are related because they all change via
> 
> "
> 1) Fitness is terms of greater reproduction.
> 2) Genes that increase lifetime reproduction will be selected for, even if they reduce the individual’s longevity.
> 3) When we find something that seems like an error in natural selection, more likely we are missing some important function that compensates for the deficit.
> 4) Change the environment, and the gene may no longer increase fitness.
> 5) Natural selection arises by chance."
> 
> What creation and creationists do is how the universe, Earth, and living creatures including humans got here in the first place.  They explain why we are here, too."
> 
> Thus, it's evolution that doesn't have all the answers.  However, I think the majority of creationists do not call natural selection -- evolution.


You want to see  the 12 Christian sects who have signed on to your atheist evolution ? They don’t believe  in creationism .

*Roman  Catholic Church*61.249.0••Southern Baptist Convention15.712.6†*United Methodist Church*8.56.8•†•National Baptist Convention USA8.26.6†Church of God in Christ5.54.4*Evangelical Lutheran Church in America*5.24.2‡*Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)*4.83.8*Presbyterian Church (USA)*3.52.8•‡•National Baptist Convention of America3.52.8†African Methodist Episcopal Church3.52.8†•Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod2.62.1*The Episcopal Church*2


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Science makes no reference to a god one way or another.


This thread is about gravity which is tied to the universe.  We have the theory of Universal Gravitation from Sir Isaac Newton.  What we theorize is based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Anyway, I can explain the science behind it to get our calculations as well as the origins.  Unfortunately, the OP couldn't help but complain about creationists and their explanation of the origins.  Usually, science doesn't get into the origins, but the OP could not help himself.  He should've just stuck to the Einstein and Newton's theories.

Now, you come in to complain about the origins.  Why not just present what you have with YOUR complaint?  If we stay away from origins, then no one should have any problems with the topic.  I have problems with the OP and why he has a need to complain about the creationists when he is the one who brings in origins.

OTOH, you _sneakily_ bring in origins by bringing in God when neither are the topic. For whatever reason, you had to made a bunch of threads on your complaints.

Why can't one just say "Gravity:  It's only a theory?"

As for origins, I, as a scientist, can say this is how gravity works and how we can use it by getting calculations.  As to how gravity and everything else got here, I don't know.  As a creationist, I can say I know how gravity and everything else originated.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> Not my thread, Einstein.


I don't blame you for disavowing it.

I didn't say it was "your thread."  I called it 'this whole "gravity is just a theory thread?'"



Grumblenuts said:


> You can also take it from Tesla:


I'll happily debate Tesla when he comes on this forum, and says something with which I disagree.

If you think something he said disputes my facts, quote it and say you will defend it.  Otherwise, you will just say, "hey, talk to Tesla."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This thread is about gravity which is tied to the universe.  We have the theory of Universal Gravitation from Sir Isaac Newton.  What we theorize is based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
> 
> Anyway, I can explain the science behind it to get our calculations as well as the origins.  Unfortunately, the OP couldn't help but complain about creationists and their explanation of the origins.  Usually, science doesn't get into the origins, but the OP could not help himself.  He should've just stuck to the Einstein and Newton's theories.
> 
> Now, you come in to complain about the origins.  Why not just present what you have with YOUR complaint?  If we stay away from origins, then no one should have any problems with the topic.  I have problems with the OP and why he has a need to complain about the creationists when he is the one who brings in origins.
> 
> OTOH, you _sneakily_ bring in origins by bringing in God when neither are the topic. For whatever reason, you had to made a bunch of threads on your complaints.
> 
> Why can't one just say "Gravity:  It's only a theory?"
> 
> As for origins, I, as a scientist, can say this is how gravity works and how we can use it by getting calculations.  As to how gravity and everything else got here, I don't know.  As a creationist, I can say I know how gravity and everything else originated.



As a creationer, you can’t tell anyone anything without invoking fear and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm not sidestepping anything.  First, evolution from Darwin says nothing about God nor atheism.  Very few atheists here have pointed it out.  You and the majority of atheists just criticize creation.  Natural selection points out how living organisms, animals and humans are related because they all change via
> 
> "
> 1) Fitness is terms of greater reproduction.
> 2) Genes that increase lifetime reproduction will be selected for, even if they reduce the individual’s longevity.
> 3) When we find something that seems like an error in natural selection, more likely we are missing some important function that compensates for the deficit.
> 4) Change the environment, and the gene may no longer increase fitness.
> 5) Natural selection arises by chance."
> 
> What creation and creationists do is how the universe, Earth, and living creatures including humans got here in the first place.  They explain why we are here, too."
> 
> Thus, it's evolution that doesn't have all the answers.  However, I think the majority of creationists do not call natural selection -- evolution.



There is no reason why Darwin’s work should have anything to do with your extremist religious beliefs.


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> You want to see  the 12 Christian sects who have signed on to your atheist evolution ? They don’t believe  in creationism .
> 
> *Roman  Catholic Church*61.249.0••Southern Baptist Convention15.712.6†*United Methodist Church*8.56.8•†•National Baptist Convention USA8.26.6†Church of God in Christ5.54.4*Evangelical Lutheran Church in America*5.24.2‡*Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)*4.83.8*Presbyterian Church (USA)*3.52.8•‡•National Baptist Convention of America3.52.8†African Methodist Episcopal Church3.52.8†•Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod2.62.1*The Episcopal Church*2


But Bond (and that other freak) say anyone supporting Evo is an atheist.
One can be a rational secularist, just not a completely science-denying literalist.
Also, when they say god they only mean their god, and as you point out, their SECT/CULT of literalism.
`

`


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> I didn't say it was "your thread."  I called it 'this whole "gravity is just a theory thread?'"


Yes, in fact you did. Earlier:


Seymour Flops said:


> Did you have a point with this whole "gravity is just a theory thread?"


Again, not my thread, Flops. Deal with it. Moving on..


Seymour Flops said:


> I'll happily debate Tesla when he comes on this forum, and says something with which I disagree.
> 
> If you think something he said disputes my facts, quote it and say you will defend it.


I did and, sorry, you best get used to defending your own stuff. Regardless, thanks for revealing your true, tedious wanker self. Life is short. Bubbye!


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, in fact you did. Earlier:
> 
> Again, not my thread, Flops. Deal with it. Moving on..
> 
> I did and, sorry, you best get used to defending your own stuff. Regardless, thanks for revealing your true, tedious wanker self. Life is short. Bubbye!


Never takes long for the personal attacks accompanied by a goodbye to come out.

Run, Gumplenuts, run!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> As a creationer, you can’t tell anyone anything without invoking fear and superstition.


Are you afraid that the creationists are right with their creation science?  After all, they have evidence that backs up creation while macroevolution doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

I think superstition comes in with belief in atheism.  Supernatural isn't the same as superstition, so you are wrong again lol -- Supernatural vs Superstition - What's the difference?.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> But Bond (and that other freak) say anyone supporting Evo is an atheist.


Heh, you don't know about your own religion lmao.  As the norm, I kick your worthless atheist ass all over the place here.

'Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.  The prominent new atheist, agnostic and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claims that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

The majority of Western World atheists are evolutionists.  As far as nontheist Buddhism, as no major beliefs/principles of Buddhism are contrary to it, many Buddhists are also evolutionists.[4][5]

The Discovery Institute reported:



“Compare just these two findings, reported in a survey we commissioned in 2016. On one hand:
Nearly 7 in 10 atheists and more than 4 in 10 agnostics say that for them personally, unguided chemical evolution and Darwin's mutation/natural selection mechanism have made the existence of God "less likely."
On the other:
By contrast, 6 in 10 theists and more than 2 in 10 agnostics say the existence in nature of "many things that are exquisitely designed and highly complex" has made the existence of God "more likely" for them personally.[6]”

The atheist philosopher and evolutionist Michael Ruse admitted:



“[E]volution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.[7]”

Michael Ruse also indicated: "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."[8]

In the their Question evolution! campaign, Creation Ministries International asserts that evolution is a religion.[9]  The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.[10] The _15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer_ can be found at their webpage entitled 15 questions for evolutionists.'





__





						Atheism and evolution - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no reason why Darwin’s work should have anything to do with your extremist religious beliefs.


The Bible came BEFORE Darwin, but he didn't take its creation science into consideration.  Thus, evolution doesn't fit as creation already explained natural selection.

Instead, what Darwin proposed has natural selection by abiogenesis, but there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  Darwin had his own ideas about origins and today atheists have their own ideas, too.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The Bible came BEFORE Darwin, but he didn't take its creation science into consideration.  Thus, evolution doesn't fit as creation already explained natural selection.
> 
> Instead, what Darwin proposed has natural selection by abiogenesis, but there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  Darwin had his own ideas about origins and today atheists have their own ideas, too.



Your madrassah has been a source of falsehoods and misinformation. Darwin’s work never addressed abiogenesis.

Jimmy Swaggert is not a qualified science teacher.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> ETA: My purpose in S&I isn't to discuss proof of God, but to show creation science. Now, I can show proof of it with secular ways and not have to say, "God did it."
> 
> Here's an example. Noah's or global flood was created as "on this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up . . ." (Genesis 7:11). We find "ocean springs off Ecuador's coast that proved that such large bodies of water do indeed contains fountains spewing liquids." The big evidence is we learned about plate tectonics from creationist Alfred Wegener.


"Fountains spewing liquids"??? Give us evidence of how much spewing is needed.

The average depth of water in the ocean is 1.6 miles

To raise the ocean another 1.6 miles would require another entire ocean of water. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high. The amount of water needed to cover the tallest mountain is formidable -- a multiple number of oceans, which is not known to exist.









						Deep waters
					

Santa Cruz, California DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect...




					www.newscientist.com
				



_But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated._​
Another source says the trapped water is 400 Km below the surface. Creationists have not covered the fact that the water that is trapped in the earth is not available to rise as fountains. What strains the physical reality even more is the process of getting the several oceans worth of receding flood water 400 Km back down into the mantel where it is today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.

*That is evidence that Noah's flood is impossible.*

.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The Bible came BEFORE Darwin, but he didn't take its creation science into consideration.  Thus, evolution doesn't fit as creation already explained natural selection.
> 
> Instead, what Darwin proposed has natural selection by abiogenesis, but there is no evidence for abiogenesis.  Darwin had his own ideas about origins and today atheists have their own ideas, too.



Many gods came before your gods. Why do you worship a day late and a Bible short gods?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Heh, you don't know about your own religion lmao.  As the norm, I kick your worthless atheist ass all over the place here.
> 
> 'Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.  The prominent new atheist, agnostic and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claims that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
> 
> The majority of Western World atheists are evolutionists.  As far as nontheist Buddhism, as no major beliefs/principles of Buddhism are contrary to it, many Buddhists are also evolutionists.[4][5]
> 
> The Discovery Institute reported:
> 
> 
> 
> “Compare just these two findings, reported in a survey we commissioned in 2016. On one hand:
> Nearly 7 in 10 atheists and more than 4 in 10 agnostics say that for them personally, unguided chemical evolution and Darwin's mutation/natural selection mechanism have made the existence of God "less likely."
> On the other:
> By contrast, 6 in 10 theists and more than 2 in 10 agnostics say the existence in nature of "many things that are exquisitely designed and highly complex" has made the existence of God "more likely" for them personally.[6]”
> 
> The atheist philosopher and evolutionist Michael Ruse admitted:
> 
> 
> 
> “[E]volution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.[7]”
> 
> Michael Ruse also indicated: "Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."[8]
> 
> In the their Question evolution! campaign, Creation Ministries International asserts that evolution is a religion.[9]  The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.[10] The _15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer_ can be found at their webpage entitled 15 questions for evolutionists.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism and evolution - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.conservapedia.com


Why should anyone but a religious extremist accept anything from charlatans at the Disco'tute?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Are you afraid that the creationists are right with their creation science?  After all, they have evidence that backs up creation while macroevolution doesn't have any evidence to back it up.
> 
> I think superstition comes in with belief in atheism.  Supernatural isn't the same as superstition, so you are wrong again lol -- Supernatural vs Superstition - What's the difference?.


The ID'iot creationers are not right, so. no reason to be afraid. 

Why are ID'iot creationers afraid of facts and evidence?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The ID'iot creationers are not right, so. no reason to be afraid.
> 
> Why are ID'iot creationers afraid of facts and evidence?


As per your norm, you do not discuss the topic.  At least, I try to discuss the topic, but this is not an easy one to understand.  God gave us gravity and it gives us attraction between physical bodies and time dilation.

Yours is but to complain about me.  The main reason to be afraid of God's wrath is the Lake of Fire forever.  However, you'll suffer immediate pain after death as you will be transported to a temporary hell while I'll go to a temporary heaven.  Those are the facts whether you believe it or not.  

I think gravity or Jesus helps to pull you in if one tries to escape.  That's just my personal opinion or imagination lol.  This way there's no need for a flaming arrow to the heart and you being dragged back in agony.  Also, there are stories of the devil dragging you to hell but that's not what the Bible states.  

The facts and evidence are in the Bible and science backs up the evidence.  Also, I'm able to explain them here.  I can't help it if it repudiates your evolutionary beliefs, but the Bible said it first and the greatest scientists of the world have been creation scientists.  Your scientists die and are quickly forgotten.  What did you learn from what's his name?


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> "Fountains spewing liquids"??? Give us evidence of how much spewing is needed.
> 
> The average depth of water in the ocean is 1.6 miles
> 
> To raise the ocean another 1.6 miles would require another entire ocean of water. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high. The amount of water needed to cover the tallest mountain is formidable -- a multiple number of oceans, which is not known to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deep waters
> 
> 
> Santa Cruz, California DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated._​
> Another source says the trapped water is 400 Km below the surface. Creationists have not covered the fact that the water that is trapped in the earth is not available to rise as fountains. What strains the physical reality even more is the process of getting the several oceans worth of receding flood water 400 Km back down into the mantel where it is today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.
> 
> *That is evidence that Noah's flood is impossible.*
> 
> .


This has been explained already as the Bible was here before New Scientist magazine lol.









						Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
					

Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...




					www.icr.org
				




These new scientists and you just can't accept the truth because it goes against faith in evolutionary thinking.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> As per your norm, you do not discuss the topic.  At least, I try to discuss the topic, but this is not an easy one to understand.  God gave us gravity and it gives us attraction between physical bodies and time dilation.
> 
> Yours is but to complain about me.  The main reason to be afraid of God's wrath is the Lake of Fire forever.  However, you'll suffer immediate pain after death as you will be transported to a temporary hell while I'll go to a temporary heaven.  Those are the facts whether you believe it or not.
> 
> I think gravity or Jesus helps to pull you in if one tries to escape.  That's just my personal opinion or imagination lol.  This way there's no need for a flaming arrow to the heart and you being dragged back in agony.  Also, there are stories of the devil dragging you to hell but that's not what the Bible states.
> 
> The facts and evidence are in the Bible and science backs up the evidence.  Also, I'm able to explain them here.  I can't help it if it repudiates your evolutionary beliefs, but the Bible said it first and the greatest scientists of the world have been creation scientists.  Your scientists die and are quickly forgotten.  What did you learn from what's his name?


You don't discuss anything. You proselytize. You don't understand what forum you're in. 

Live in trembling fear of your gods in the religion forum.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This has been explained already as the Bible was here before New Scientist magazine lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
> 
> 
> Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These new scientists and you just can't accept the truth because it goes against faith in evolutionary thinking.



YouTube videos accompanied by music and lots of pretty colors. 

Science for the religious extremist.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> This has been explained already as the Bible was here before New Scientist magazine lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
> 
> 
> Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These new scientists and you just can't accept the truth because it goes against faith in evolutionary thinking.


Can you point out the spot in your video where they say where the several oceans worth of water was and how all that managed to come through the fountains of the deep? And where several oceans worth of water disappeared to when the flood receded? 

If this has been explained in the bible, as you say, then you are relying on a religious miracle, not science. This should be in the religious forum, not here.
.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> But Bond (and that other freak) say anyone supporting Evo is an atheist.
> One can be a rational secularist, just not a completely science-denying literalist.
> Also, when they say god they only mean their god, and as you point out, their SECT/CULT of literalism.
> `
> 
> `


Ha ha…
Every Christian who claims to follow their bible as fact is a hypocrite. They don’t even represent other Christians who admit to support evolution.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> This thread is about gravity which is tied to the universe.  We have the theory of Universal Gravitation from Sir Isaac Newton.  What we theorize is based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
> 
> Anyway, I can explain the science behind it to get our calculations as well as the origins.  Unfortunately, the OP couldn't help but complain about creationists and their explanation of the origins.  Usually, science doesn't get into the origins, but the OP could not help himself.  He should've just stuck to the Einstein and Newton's theories.
> 
> Now, you come in to complain about the origins.  Why not just present what you have with YOUR complaint?  If we stay away from origins, then no one should have any problems with the topic.  I have problems with the OP and why he has a need to complain about the creationists when he is the one who brings in origins.
> 
> OTOH, you _sneakily_ bring in origins by bringing in God when neither are the topic. For whatever reason, you had to made a bunch of threads on your complaints.
> 
> Why can't one just say "Gravity:  It's only a theory?"
> 
> As for origins, I, as a scientist, can say this is how gravity works and how we can use it by getting calculations.  As to how gravity and everything else got here, I don't know.  As a creationist, I can say I know how gravity and everything else originated.


Way too much to read…..no comment about the 12 sects of Christians who have all signed on to evolution ?


----------



## Samofvt

The gravity of this situation is horrendously bias.  
e=mc^2  
Proven to the extent of we know.
Does gravity have mass?  No, it is the effect of mass.
There's a missing equation, possibly two missing equations.
\     /
   0
   |
After all, all good things come in threes.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You don't discuss anything. You proselytize. You don't understand what forum you're in.
> 
> Live in trembling fear of your gods in the religion forum.


See, that's all you can do with evolutionary science vs creation science.  Evolutionists, atheists and their scientists just don't get it.  With the evolutionary or atheist science, you also get the wrath of God who will send you all to your temporary hell of Hades.  No need to have Satan drag you there.  After that, you go to Gehenna which will be your eternal fiery place.  It could be towards the center of the Earth that the evil ones head toward.

You can see why gravity is necessary, as it points towards the center of the Earth, for those who try to escape their fate and continue to bitch and moan about it.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Way too much to read…..no comment about the 12 sects of Christians who have all signed on to evolution ?


I think most Christians reject you and evolution (except for natural selection) lol.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Can you point out the spot in your video where they say where the several oceans worth of water was and how all that managed to come through the fountains of the deep? And where several oceans worth of water disappeared to when the flood receded?
> 
> If this has been explained in the bible, as you say, then you are relying on a religious miracle, not science. This should be in the religious forum, not here.
> .


You should go to the part 2 since you couldn't figure that out for yourself.

As for your opinions on the Bible, no Christian should depend on your worthless atheist one.  You are one of the worst and lowest scumbag here.  What was found was that science backed up the Bible with the Marangoni Effect.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You should go to the part 2 since you couldn't figure that out for yourself.
> 
> As for your opinions on the Bible, no Christian should depend on your worthless atheist one.  You are one of the worst and lowest scumbag here.  What was found was that science backed up the Bible with the Marangoni Effect.


Balderdash. The Marangoni Effect works on surface tension differentials between two liquids or gasses. Any H2O below the mantel is locked in a solid phase, or a phase with high viscosity. The Maragoni Effect applied to a flood is a smoke screen to fool non-scientists. 

Besides that, the ocean is 332 billion cubic miles of water. A global flood would need over a trillion extra cubic miles of water to reach the highest mountain. Where does all that water come from? Besides that what mechanism gets the flood water 400 Km back down into to the mantle when the flood recedes. Certainly not the Maragoni Effect. Your video didn't cover that.

Most creationists believe a miracle aided by God caused the flood. That's OK. You should too. Your video was only made to impress naïve Christians. 
.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> See, that's all you can do with evolutionary science vs creation science.  Evolutionists, atheists and their scientists just don't get it.  With the evolutionary or atheist science, you also get the wrath of God who will send you all to your temporary hell of Hades.  No need to have Satan drag you there.  After that, you go to Gehenna which will be your eternal fiery place.  It could be towards the center of the Earth that the evil ones head toward.
> 
> You can see why gravity is necessary, as it points towards the center of the Earth, for those who try to escape their fate and continue to bitch and moan about it.


ID'iot creationer "science" is nothing more than religion under a burqa of falsely claimed science. Science is not subdivided into a subset of ID'iot creationer science. 

Pass that on to your peers at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Balderdash. The Marangoni Effect works on surface tension differentials between two liquids or gasses. Any H2O below the mantel is locked in a solid phase, or a phase with high viscosity. The Maragoni Effect applied to a flood is a smoke screen to fool non-scientists.


I am one of the better non-scientist scientist here.  You are a plain non-scientist and do not know nor understand what happened during the global flood.  Besides, your religion of atheism won't let you believe it.  We have its results all over the world.  

The Marangoni Effect isn't in the Bible, but we find that science backs up what the Bible describes of the global flood.  After all, the global flood was no miracle (You are wrong again; Atheists are usually wrong).  It was a God's reaction to evil and dangerous people outnumbering the good.  They would've all killed the good if left to continue.  

God wanted the Earth to start over again to give its people another chance.  Don't think you'll get a third chance AFTER death though!  We are again headed for mass destruction.  Can it happen again in short time to around 2060 or another forty years or so?  Yes, it could as we have the rise of atheism.  I should update my deadly weapons at home and get a high-powered rifle versus them.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ID'iot creationer "science" is nothing more than religion under a burqa of falsely claimed science. Science is not subdivided into a subset of ID'iot creationer science.
> 
> Pass that on to your peers at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.


I don't listen to Jimmy Swaggert nor tv evangelists.  So who knows what he says?  You could be one of them since you brought him up.  What does he say?  Does he talk about creation science lol?  Would that bring him extra revenues?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Way too much to read…..no comment about the 12 sects of Christians who have all signed on to evolution ?


LMAO.  You shouldn't be in S&T if you can't read beyond a paragrah.  Just leave.  Why am I discussing anything with you lol?


----------



## james bond

james bond said:


> You should go to the part 2 since you couldn't figure that out for yourself.


I'm pretty sure you didn't listen/watch the whole vid, but the Book of Job also points out the center of the volcanoes on Earth.  What about those Wuwei?  Where is the center of volcanoes on Earth?  Do you even think there is a center of volcanoes hm... (Watch listen to episode 1)?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I don't listen to Jimmy Swaggert nor tv evangelists.  So who knows what he says?  You could be one of them since you brought him up.  What does he say?  Does he talk about creation science lol?  Would that bring him extra revenues?


You continue your Bible thumping proselytizing in the Science forum. 

Please take it to the religion forum.


----------



## Grumblenuts

How to build a super exciting James Bond spy rocket at home to strap yourself to and kiss your sorry ass goodbye, brought to you by..

*CREATOR MAN!!*


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You continue your Bible thumping proselytizing in the Science forum.
> 
> Please take it to the religion forum.


I gave Wuwei, you and the atheists here the evidence for a global flood and real science -- creation science (also provided creation vs atheist science and Wuwei is pointed out here because of you know).  Your side has provided a total of NOTHING in all the months I've been here. 

I even pointed out our final destinations which would be the only Bible proselytizing I've done here.  The rest is creation science or real science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I gave Wuwei, you and the atheists here the evidence for a global flood and real science -- creation science (also provided creation vs atheist science and Wuwei is pointed out here because of you know).  Your side has provided a total of NOTHING in all the months I've been here.
> 
> I even pointed out our final destinations which would be the only Bible proselytizing I've done here.  The rest is creation science or real science.


You never provided evidence of a global flood. 

As usual, you bring your gods and extremist religious beliefs into a science forum. 

Take your bible thumping to the religion forum.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I gave @Wuwei, you and the atheists here the evidence for a global flood and real science


No creationist nor you nor the bible can say where an extra *trillion* cubic miles of water came from. And no creationist nor you nor the bible can say where all that water is today. So your pseudo-science is just that. The flood story is a 'cute' tale of your god committing genocide, but the flood in the story didn't happen. Not possible.
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> No creationist nor you nor the bible can say where an extra *trillion* cubic miles of water came from. And no creationist nor you nor the bible can say where all that water is today. So your pseudo-science is just that. The flood story is a 'cute' tale of your god committing genocide, but the flood in the story didn't happen. Not possible.
> .


You are in denial.  First, it was stated in the Bible a long time ago as a punishment/protection global event and geologic history.  After that, science backed it up with hydrothermal vents and...

the Grand Canyon, the White Cliffs of Dover, the Coconino Sandstone, Sand wave deposition, the fossil layers and the layers we have to explain the make-believe evolution layers (It happened in a single instance!), the first rainbow, and more.

The denial of the true and real evidence for God and his works will always be as Satan is clever and has fooled the atheists and sinners into going furthest away from Him.  Otherwise, you would have even the littlest shred of evidence to discuss here, but none of you do lol.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> You continue your Bible thumping proselytizing in the Science forum.
> 
> Please take it to the religion forum.


Stop responding to him 5000 times in every thread, and maybe he will.

Doubtful, though. James is a sock account of another poster, made specifically for posting in the science section.


----------



## Wuwei

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop responding to him 5000 times in every thread, and maybe he will.
> 
> Doubtful, though. James is a sock account of another poster, made specifically for posting in the science section.


You are right. He is now repeating himself. Nothing new to see here. I will leave him to his science denial and let him relish his miracles of the bible. 
.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop responding to him 5000 times in every thread, and maybe he will.
> 
> Doubtful, though. James is a sock account of another poster, made specifically for posting in the science section.


What you need to realize is that global flood was God's biggest punishment up until then, but there wasn't anything we could do to stop His wrath.  However, we still would've survived for eternity had we received grace and believed in the coming of Jesus. 

Today, we receive grace by believing in the salvation of Jesus.  How does creation science deal with this?  By teaching everything wasn't formed over billions of years, but by God the Father through His Son Jesus.  We have evidence for the latter, but not for billions nor even millions of years.  Unfortunately for you, you don't have the evidence for billions nor millions of years.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> How to build a super exciting James Bond spy rocket at home to strap yourself to and kiss your sorry ass goodbye, brought to you by..
> 
> *CREATOR MAN!!*


It would be nice to be able to create like Jesus, but I'm not a supernatural being.  We all have to go sometime, so may as well go happy and with salvation.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> LMAO.  You shouldn't be in S&T if you can't read beyond a paragrah.  Just leave.  Why am I discussing anything with you lol?


Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> I'm not a supernatural being.


Fine admission, but don't worry. No one would even accuse you of being a purple one.


----------



## Wuwei

Dagosa said:


> Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.


He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along. 
.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.
> .


With a half dozen paragraphs that few even  read. I think he’s campaigning for a  ministry position.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You never provided evidence of a global flood.


I just did using the Marangoni Effect and the following recent article backs up the Bible and Noah's Flood.  It's how the waters from below came up.

'“Understanding the distinct surface deformation in liquids with different depths helps unravel the dynamics of the surface deformation process,” said Bao.  

Bao used a low-power (<1 W) continuous-wave laser beam to create a non-uniform surface temperature field to induce the Marangoni effect. To understand the distinct deformations between deep and shallow liquids, he varied the liquid layer thickness while keeping the laser beam the same. 

The laser fountains and the depth-dependent transition from surface indentation to laser fountain have never been reported in literature, probably because they are not anticipated by any existing theory. 

“We emphasize that there have been numerous attempts to understand the Marangoni flow-driven surface deformation, but no existing theory can predict the deformation patterns of a liquid with an arbitrary depth in a straightforward manner,” said Bao.'









						UH Engineers Discover Method to Create Upward Water Fountain in Deep Water
					

Fountain Created by Lasers, Marangoni Effect is the Cause



					www.uh.edu


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.


Sheesh.  I'm the one who brings up new science here just by using the Bible.  It shows science backs up the Bible, but not evolution.  It's your belief in evolution that prevents you from real science.  Otherwise, wouldn't you have the new science to bring up?  The atheists have brought up exactly zilch, zero, nada and less in the many months I've been here lol.

The global flood waters have been explained before.  Here's a youtube on your atheist doubts.


----------



## rupol2000

The theory of gravity uses the anti-scientific principle of action at a distance. This is a debunked theory. Action at a distance has not been found in nature.


----------



## Wuwei

rupol2000 said:


> The theory of gravity uses the anti-scientific principle of action at a distance. This is a debunked theory. Action at a distance has not been found in nature.


Action at a distance isn't used anymore. Field Theory is used. It is a fundamental  concept in physics.


----------



## rupol2000

Wuwei said:


> Action at a distance isn't used anymore. Field Theory is used. It is a fundamental  concept in physics.


Politically correct title of Ether? Then why do they keep denying the Ether?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rupol2000 said:


> Politically correct title of Ether? Then why do they keep denying the Ether?



Fields are not "Ether"


----------



## rupol2000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Fields are not "Ether"


They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with "fields". If they could deny wave properties, they would go back to Newton's theory of flying shit. They invented "photons" for this very reason. They were helped in this by LSD.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rupol2000 said:


> They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with fields.


No, that's idiotic. The idea of fields are so completely different from your ether fantasy that I am embarrassed even to be comparing them or mentioning them together.

The idea of fields arose as mathematical genius, because it is a model that explains what we observe. The ether was never proposed as a solution to the problems solved by field models. 

take this nonsense walking, there is no place for it in this discussion.


----------



## rupol2000

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The idea of fields arose as mathematical


I said: LSD + mathematical speculation (I remind you that physics is not a speculative science).

By the way, the "theory of relativity" appeared in exactly the same way. This is the mathematical model of Poincaré


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> You are right. He is now repeating himself. Nothing new to see here. I will leave him to his science denial and let him relish his miracles of the bible.


If you don't want to believe in the global flood even though it did happen is up to you.  It was in regards to the Wrath of God.

I should point out that if you do not want to believe in God's wrath or His goodness, then there is something else as it is something that I usually do not talk about.  And that is the temptation of Satan and the evil things Satan does.  The Bible states that he is also responsible for death of atheists as well as tempting them to go against God.

'
CAESAR BORGIA​
Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die.”


THOMAS HOBBS​
Political philosopher: “I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark.”


THOMAS PAYNE​
The leading atheistic writer in American colonies: “Stay with me, for God’s sake; I cannot bear to be left alone , O Lord, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? What will become of me hereafter? I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! No, don’t leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one.”


SIR THOMAS SCOTT​
Chancellor of England: “Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty.”


VOLTAIRE​
Famous anti-christian atheist: “I have swallowed nothing but smoke. I have intoxicated myself with the incense that turned my head. I am abandoned by God and man.” He said to his physician, Dr. Fochin: “I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life.” When he was told this was not possible, he said “Then I shall die and go to hell!” His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”


ROBERT INGERSOLL​
American writer and orator during the Golden Age of Free Thought: “O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!” Some say it was said this way: “Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!


DAVID HUME​
Atheist philosopher famous for his philosophy of empiricism and skepticism of religion: He cried loud on his death bed “I am in flames!” It is said his desperation was a horrible scene.


NAPOLEON BONAPARTE​
French emperor who, like Adolf Hitler, brought death to millions to satisfy his greedy, power-mad, selfish ambitions for world conquest: “I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth. Such is the fate of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ!”


SIR FRANCIS NEWPORT​
Head of an English Atheist club, to those gathered around his deathbed: “You need not tell me there is no God, for I know there is one, and that I am in his presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell! Oh, that I could lie for a thousand years upon the fire that is never quenched, to purchase the favor of God and be united to Him again. But it is a fruitless wish. Millions and millions of years will bring me no nearer the end of my torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity forever and forever! Oh, the insufferable pangs of Hell!”'









						The Last Words Of Dying Atheists
					

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay CAESAR BORGIA Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: “While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to …




					mousesqueak.com
				




What will you have to say when you're at death's bed?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> the Wrath of God.


Good grief…..if you believe  the wrath of god as a response to the evil doers, it has to be the gop who hate the poor, minorities and the oppressed. You  know, all those people repugs try to fuck over.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.

This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.   

Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts. 

Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force.  That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute.  But that is not the "Theory of Gravity." 

Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth.  The existence of species is not in dispute.  But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.

Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory.  There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through  natural selection.  So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.

Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.

Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection.  So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.

*By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory.  I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . . . "


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.
> 
> This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.
> 
> Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts.
> 
> Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force.  That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute.  But that is not the "Theory of Gravity."
> 
> Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth.  The existence of species is not in dispute.  But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.
> 
> Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory.  There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through  natural selection.  So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.
> 
> Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.
> 
> Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection.  So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.
> 
> *By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory.  I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . . . "


Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002

*..1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is _“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”_
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the _theory_ of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the _Fact_ of evolution...."
[......]









						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



​`​


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.
> 
> `


With no real response to any of the previous 29?

You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it. 

When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it.  Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.

Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you. 

What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> With no real response to any of the previous 29?
> 
> You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.
> 
> When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it.  Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.
> 
> Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.
> 
> What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.


I've put it in my own words (and elaborated) HUNDREDS of times, as I understand science and this topic.
I wanted some authority behind it for your Introduction instead of a yes/no/yes/no opinion exchange
Yours is WRONG.

If I put it in my own words you would hve said "Just your opinion".
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
*But I can easily explain it another 100 times to another denier as I do here with MOST of my posts in the section.
Read back a few pages/threads.*

You are very new to this section. I am not.
And instead of answering it, you BSed about me copying it,
Fraudulent deflection/whiff.
If you put up a contrary link I personally could debunk it as I do when creationists do put them up
OTOH, you can't/won't even touch my link.

Troll.

`


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> With no real response to any of the previous 29?
> 
> You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.
> 
> When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it.  Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.
> 
> Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.
> 
> What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.


'Appeal to Authority' is often abused by Science ILLITERATES of which you are one.

Appeal to Authority does not apply to bona fide experts on the topic (nor does it apply to scientific consensus unless you are or have an expert to present). Appeal to authority would be Trump or Kobe Bryant's opinion on Evo.
OTOH, citing, ie, Einstein on relativity would be an excellent source and obviously not a fallacy.

*Nor is my is my sig a fallacy, but one of the foremost experts on the topic until he died. *
The quote/s from his book and article "Evolution as fact and theory"

You Clown.
`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I've put it in my own words (and elaborated) HUNDREDS of times, as I understand science and this topic.
> I wanted some authority behind it for your Introduction instead of a yes/no/yes/no opinion exchange
> Yours is WRONG.
> 
> You are very new here to this section. I am not.
> And instead of answering it, you BSed about me copying it,
> Fraudulent deflection/whiff.
> 
> Troll.
> `


Yes, I'm new here and have not read your elaborated own words HUNDREDS of time (that is hyperbole, right?).

I'll take your word for it and I will answer your cut-and-paste.  It will be interesting to see if you respond just as I described other responding.

The answer is that yes, many well-accepted, often verified, scientific, ideas are technically theories, and not facts.  I was a math teacher, and I know that the Pythagorean Theorem is a "theory," but it has been proven every time, and never shown to be false, so it is well-accepted.

But . . . even the most well-accepted scientific theory is subject to refutation.  "Don't question the science" is the most unscientific statement possible.  Questioning science is how science works.

For hundreds of years, people questions Newton's theory of gravity, and did not find it lacking.  Until they did and Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's theory.  Someday, maybe in a thousand years or maybe next week, Einstein's theory may be superseded by another. 

That's science, get used to it.

Now, since you are so offended that I did not answer your post, I'm sure you will want to answer mine, instead of just cutting and pasting something.  Here it is:



> Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.
> 
> This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.
> 
> Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts.
> 
> Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force. That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute. But that is not the "Theory of Gravity."
> 
> Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth. The existence of species is not in dispute. But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.
> 
> Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory. There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection. So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.
> 
> Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.
> 
> Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection. So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.
> 
> *By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory. I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . .


Good luck!

PS:  Could you both start and end your reply to me with name calling and other ad hominem attacks, instead of waiting until the end?  I like to be reminded of the level you operate on.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, I'm new here and have not read your elaborated own words HUNDREDS of time (that is hyperbole, right?).


Alas not hyperbole.
This section is about 50% Evolution vs Creationism.
Majority of what I do here. ie, Check my many threads on this page alone. Most of the time I just bump them up because we get the same denier claim, and I have a thread which already covers most of them. ie, "God of the Gaps" is the most common along with 'only a theory.'



Seymour Flops said:


> I'll take your word for it and I will answer your cut-and-paste.  It will be interesting to see if you respond just as I described other responding.
> 
> The answer is that yes, many well-accepted, often verified, scientific, ideas are technically theories, and not facts.  I was a math teacher, and I know that the Pythagorean Theorem is a "theory," but it has been proven every time, and never shown to be false, so it is well-accepted





Seymour Flops said:


> But . . . even the most well-accepted scientific theory is subject to refutation.  "Don't question the science" is the most unscientific statement possible.  Questioning science is how science works.
> 
> For hundreds of years, people questions Newton's theory of gravity, and did not find it lacking.  Until they did and Newton's theory was superseded by Einstein's theory.  Someday, maybe in a thousand years or maybe next week, Einstein's theory may be superseded by another.
> 
> That's science, get used to it.
> 
> Now, since you are so offended that I did not answer your post, I'm sure you will want to answer mine, instead of just cutting and pasting something.  Here it is:
> 
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> PS:  Could you both start and end your reply to me with name calling and other ad hominem attacks, instead of waiting until the end?  I like to be reminded of the level you operate on.


Theories are the best thing we have to describe nature/the universe.
Most are facts.
Read one more sentence from the link I quoted.

Science does Not deal in 100.0000% "Proof," only math does.
Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence to call them 'facts.'
In court, perps are oft found "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," and hung on what would NOT be enough to constitute the sci definition of 'proof" which is NO doubt/100%. But Evo has Overwhelming evidence that would and has won in court.

Poof does not exist for most of the Facts we spout daily and you accept either.
Again read one more sentence from my link on what constitutes fact in science. Like 'theory' it's a higher bar than the colloquial use of the word.

Oh yeah, I CAN explain it/much more all day every day.
Just about every week we get 'Only a theory' here because people do Not know what a scientific theory is. Thus the link.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Alas not hyperbole.
> This section is about 50% Evolution vs Creationism.
> Majority of what I do here. ie, Check my many threads on this page alone. Most of the time I just bump them up because we get the same denier claim, and I have a thread which already covers most of them. ie, "God of the Gaps" is the most common along with 'only a theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are the best thing we have to describe nature/the universe.
> Most are facts.
> Read one more sentence from the link I quoted.
> 
> Science does Not deal in 100.0000% "Proof," only math does.
> Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence to call them 'facts.'
> In court, perps are oft found "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," and hung on what would NOT be enough to constitute the sci definition of 'proof" which is NO doubt/100%. But Evo has Overwhelming evidence that would and has won in court.
> 
> Poof does not exist for most of the Facts we spout daily and you accept either.
> Again read one more sentence from my link on what constitutes fact in science. Like 'theory' it's a higher bar than the colloquial use of the word.
> 
> Oh yeah, I CAN explain it/much more all day every day.
> Just about every week we get 'Only a theory' here because people do Not know what a scientific theory is. Thus the link.


Ok, well we seem to more-or-less agree on the idea that "just a theory," is an invalid argument, since so many scientific theories (and mathematical theorems) are well-accepted.

I'm not sure how you stand on my statement that even the most accepted scientific theories often end up being refuted.  Specifically the OP's citing of Newton's Theory of Gravity was unfortunate, since it was refuted decades ago.  A scientific theory is important, but it is not a fact, scientific or otherwise.

But, having passed on two opportunities to address that point,  I have to assume you prefer to avoid it.  So, I'll ask another question:

You've made so many threads about evolution  vs. creation.*  I have to wonder why that issue is so important to you?  If there were thousands, hundreds or any at all, public school teaching Adam and Even in Science class, I would understand your persistent opposition.  But the courts are firmly on your side on this.  They ruled a sticker on a textbook telling students that science should be approached "with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered," literally violates the U.S. Constitution.

What further mandates on acceptance of evolutionary theory do  you envision?

*May I assume that you lump creationism and intelligent design together and allow for no differences in the two?


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Good grief…..if you believe  the wrath of god as a response to the evil doers, it has to be the gop who hate the poor, minorities and the oppressed. You  know, all those people repugs try to fuck over.


See, this is what I mean by Satan.  Perhaps, you were going to go to church today and then have lunch afterward with a friend.  However, Satan convinces of you of something else and you never make it to church.

The Wrath of God is not one of those things I have at my disposal to convince you.  It's the last thing God has to punish you of what you have done as an unbeliever and sinner.  It's for the unforgiven immediately after death which would be my response to you.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> See, this is what I mean by Satan.  Perhaps, you were going to go to church today and then have lunch afterward with a friend.  However, Satan convinces of you of something else and you never make it to church.
> 
> The Wrath of God is not one of those things I have at my disposal to convince you.  It's the last thing God has to punish you of what you have done as an unbeliever and sinner.  It's for the unforgiven immediately after death which would be my response to you.


Claiming to be a Christian while supporting so called conservative values which is promoting the rich over the poor is hypocritical.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> See, this is what I mean by Satan.  Perhaps, you were going to go to church today and then have lunch afterward with a friend.  However, Satan convinces of you of something else and you never make it to church.
> 
> The Wrath of God is not one of those things I have at my disposal to convince you.  It's the last thing God has to punish you of what you have done as an unbeliever and sinner.  It's for the unforgiven immediately after death which would be my response to you.


Satan ? Shorthand for Mitch McConnell ( aka Moscow Mitch )


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> See, this is what I mean by Satan.  Perhaps, you were going to go to church today and then have lunch afterward with a friend.  However, Satan convinces of you of something else and you never make it to church.
> 
> The Wrath of God is not one of those things I have at my disposal to convince you.  It's the last thing God has to punish you of what you have done as an unbeliever and sinner.  It's for the unforgiven immediately after death which would be my response to you.


You have satan‘s words in writing ? Sure you do. Every night on Fix News


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> See, this is what I mean by Satan.  Perhaps, you were going to go to church today and then have lunch afterward with a friend.  However, Satan convinces of you of something else and you never make it to church.
> 
> The Wrath of God is not one of those things I have at my disposal to convince you.  It's the last thing God has to punish you of what you have done as an unbeliever and sinner.  It's for the unforgiven immediately after death which would be my response to you.


Un Christian acts by the hypocrite right.
1. *You shall have no other gods before me*

It's clear that Republicans have many gods before the Lord. Most notably, the god of Money. Republicans think money, markets, and capitalism supercede grace, the Holy Spirit, and Religion. Adam Smith is a bigger profit....um...prophet than any biblical figure. Check the number of times that a Republican mentions Jesus Christ versus the number of times they allude to Ronald Reagan or George Bush as the saviors of America. You'll find that Jesus is a pinch hitter, Reagabush hits the homers.



2. *You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth*



Whether it's the diamond studded crucifix around Ann Coulter's pencil neck or the stone monument of the 10 Commandments that Republicans toss their bodies onto in order to keep them in court rooms, the Right-wing is very fond of idols. In some parts of red county you find velvet pictures of the aryan Jesus, in others you find morbid, slumped body of Christ nailed to wooden crosses made in Communist China.



Don't even get me started on the gross idolatry stirred in righties by "The Passion of The Christ" (made by the alcoholic jew-hating son of a Holocaust-denying Catholic). It was a "revelation" that almost replaced church service for an entire year. Also, do Republicans spend more time ensuring the poor are fed, or that flags aren't burned?Last, realize that idolatry can also come in the form of worshipping ideas more than God. Pop quiz, which is lauded more in right-wing circles, *laissez faire* or *blessed are the peacemakers*?







*Senior African American GOPs at a political gathering. Main picture is Alan Keyes, a prominent figure in the Republican party and a former presidential candidate.



3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.*



Republicans consistently channel their hate into the name of the Lord. Bush, upon hearing from God, convinces a nation of morons that war is actually peace, poverty is actually riches, and discord is actually togetherness.



There is no greater desecration of the Lord's name than the one that superimposes the political will of right-wing zealots over the scripture of God's Kingdom. Listen to the very simple message of *Fred Phelps* and you will see the most clear example of using the Lord's name in vain.



*4. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.*



First, we must correct the record: the Sabbath day begins at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. Most Republicans attend church on Sunday. Sad, they can't even get this part right. Second, what is Holy about Fridays and Saturdays for Republicans? Anything? They see a lot of movies on those days.



The bars of red county are full of inebriated fools with full bellies and empty souls. But, where exactly is the elevation of God or the sanctification of practice? Simply put, it does not exist because Republicans do not observe the Sabbath. Maybe they think their Old Testament love for everything Israeli exempts them from the 4th Commandment.



*5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.*



*Chelsea Clinton* and *Amy Carter* honored their parents by becoming great citizens and keeping their noses clean. By contrast, the Republican kids are a *handful*. The Bush twins, who are the political equivalent of the Hilton sisters, have hardly honored their father unless "honor" means using fake ID's to get fall-down-drunk before cameras.



Their uncle, *Neil Bush*, honors his father by costing America a billion dollars in scandalous business deals, having sex with *hookers* and doing nothing with his life but casting a shadow on his family. In fact, look at almost any unelected member of the immediate Bush *family* and *you'll* find *dishonorable* behavior. The Reagans aren't *immune* either. Family values? Hardly.



*6. You shall not murder.*



_"How about we just, you know, carpet-bomb them so they can't build a transistor radio?"_ -*Ann Coulter*



A rule against *murder* is like a rule against breathing for Republicans. They're currently working themselves into a wargasm for murder in Iran and Syria, in the same way 9/11 aroused them to penetrate Iraq. They like murder. They like it so much they *don't count the murdered* in order to prevent *anti-murder ideologues* from preventing their murder train.



Why did they *"liberate"* Iraq instead of saving the poor souls being massacred in *Sudan*? Cuz murder is good and natural. In fact, murder is life and Republicans love life, remember? Sure, they would say that there is a difference between murder (i.e. a black man killing a white woman) and spreading democracy (i.e. bombing the limbs off of children as they draw water from communal wells), but that is only to mask their bloodlust.



*7. You shall not **commit adultery*



Newt Gingrich. Bob Barr. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Christopher Buckley. Gary Bauer. *Matthew Glavin*. *Edward Schrock*. *Bob Livingston*. *Henry Hyde*.



*8. You shall not steal.*



Republicans steal what they want, when they want, and by any means necessary. They steal wages and rights from America and give it to their friends. They steal from the military, from oil rich countries, and from nature. They even steal little things they don't need, like *$1,125.79* worth of personal airline tickets, *Mexican flags*, *farm equipment*, and *odds-and-ends* from Target stores.



*9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.*



Like murder, *lies* are a favored *vehicle for advancing* Republicanism. Whether its Ann Coulter's repeated violation of *literary objectivity*, or David Horowitz' chronic *invention of facts* to prove baseless points; or Bill O'Reilly's *habitual lies* in support of Bush; or, King Bush's prettying up of *pre-war intelligence,* lies are an alternative energy source for the GOP bus.



Without *lies*, they could not gather their idiot legion into a remarkable voting force. Because this is a truism about Republican power, they have perfected their network in a total conspiracy to continually bear false witness.



*10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.*

See number 7!


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Ok, well we seem to more-or-less agree on the idea that "just a theory," is an invalid argument, since so many scientific theories (and mathematical theorems) are well-accepted.


I'm afraid we did NOT agree on 'only a theory.'
We also did NOT agree on 'Argument from Authority.'
Or should I say you disagreed with the facts?




Seymour Flops said:


> I'm not sure how you stand on my statement that even the most accepted scientific theories often end up being refuted.  Specifically the OP's citing of Newton's Theory of Gravity was unfortunate, since it was refuted decades ago.  A scientific theory is important, but it is not a fact, scientific or otherwise.
> 
> But, having passed on two opportunities to address that point,  I have to assume you prefer to avoid it.  So, I'll ask another question:


Scientific theories are the best info we have on nature/the universe.
And one getting made obsolete is not that common.

My turn.
Are you a creationist?
An anti-evolutionist on 'scientific grounds?' (at least it seems)
Of course, at least about half of creationist try the science Route and it does not go well.
*If you don't believe species can morph into another you believe they were put out here roughly as is: Creationism.*
We have an ever increasing fossil record with more 'tweeners' that only Evo would and does predict before they are found.
Predictability is also weighty.
Or do you believe in another natural explanation? On what evidence?



Seymour Flops said:


> You've made so many threads about evolution  vs. creation.*  I have to wonder why that issue is so important to you?


That was the state of the board when I returned here years ago.
There were many Creationist threads. I brushed them back with facts and their fallacies. (Note many of my threads/OPs 2017, 2018, etc)




Seymour Flops said:


> *May I assume that you lump creationism and intelligent design together and allow for no differences in the two?


Yup, because they should be lumped.

Wiki/ID​​"...*Intelligent design* (*ID*) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]​​Although the phrase _intelligent design_ had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] *its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, Directly Replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.*[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school..."​
It was a simple substitution because of the USSC ruling.
And of course ID needs a designER/god.

`


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Claiming to be a Christian while supporting so called conservative values which is promoting the rich over the poor is hypocritical.


I don't think God is liberal as He has His wrath over what He has created and provided for humans.  It's made simple, clear, and it leads to a deeper understanding of yourself, life and justice.  If I were God, then there wouldn't be any deeper understanding of you, life nor justice.  First, gravity would stretch you out.  Maybe you'd get food poisoning and all its symptoms, so my wrath would have its pleasure and laughter from me afterward.  Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> Un Christian acts by the hypocrite right.
> 1. *You shall have no other gods before me*
> 
> It's clear that Republicans have many gods before the Lord. Most notably, the god of Money. Republicans think money, markets, and capitalism supercede grace, the Holy Spirit, and Religion. Adam Smith is a bigger profit....um...prophet than any biblical figure. Check the number of times that a Republican mentions Jesus Christ versus the number of times they allude to Ronald Reagan or George Bush as the saviors of America. You'll find that Jesus is a pinch hitter, Reagabush hits the homers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth*
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's the diamond studded crucifix around Ann Coulter's pencil neck or the stone monument of the 10 Commandments that Republicans toss their bodies onto in order to keep them in court rooms, the Right-wing is very fond of idols. In some parts of red county you find velvet pictures of the aryan Jesus, in others you find morbid, slumped body of Christ nailed to wooden crosses made in Communist China.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even get me started on the gross idolatry stirred in righties by "The Passion of The Christ" (made by the alcoholic jew-hating son of a Holocaust-denying Catholic). It was a "revelation" that almost replaced church service for an entire year. Also, do Republicans spend more time ensuring the poor are fed, or that flags aren't burned?Last, realize that idolatry can also come in the form of worshipping ideas more than God. Pop quiz, which is lauded more in right-wing circles, *laissez faire* or *blessed are the peacemakers*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Senior African American GOPs at a political gathering. Main picture is Alan Keyes, a prominent figure in the Republican party and a former presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.*
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans consistently channel their hate into the name of the Lord. Bush, upon hearing from God, convinces a nation of morons that war is actually peace, poverty is actually riches, and discord is actually togetherness.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no greater desecration of the Lord's name than the one that superimposes the political will of right-wing zealots over the scripture of God's Kingdom. Listen to the very simple message of *Fred Phelps* and you will see the most clear example of using the Lord's name in vain.
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy.*
> 
> 
> 
> First, we must correct the record: the Sabbath day begins at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. Most Republicans attend church on Sunday. Sad, they can't even get this part right. Second, what is Holy about Fridays and Saturdays for Republicans? Anything? They see a lot of movies on those days.
> 
> 
> 
> The bars of red county are full of inebriated fools with full bellies and empty souls. But, where exactly is the elevation of God or the sanctification of practice? Simply put, it does not exist because Republicans do not observe the Sabbath. Maybe they think their Old Testament love for everything Israeli exempts them from the 4th Commandment.
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Chelsea Clinton* and *Amy Carter* honored their parents by becoming great citizens and keeping their noses clean. By contrast, the Republican kids are a *handful*. The Bush twins, who are the political equivalent of the Hilton sisters, have hardly honored their father unless "honor" means using fake ID's to get fall-down-drunk before cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> Their uncle, *Neil Bush*, honors his father by costing America a billion dollars in scandalous business deals, having sex with *hookers* and doing nothing with his life but casting a shadow on his family. In fact, look at almost any unelected member of the immediate Bush *family* and *you'll* find *dishonorable* behavior. The Reagans aren't *immune* either. Family values? Hardly.
> 
> 
> 
> *6. You shall not murder.*
> 
> 
> 
> _"How about we just, you know, carpet-bomb them so they can't build a transistor radio?"_ -*Ann Coulter*
> 
> 
> 
> A rule against *murder* is like a rule against breathing for Republicans. They're currently working themselves into a wargasm for murder in Iran and Syria, in the same way 9/11 aroused them to penetrate Iraq. They like murder. They like it so much they *don't count the murdered* in order to prevent *anti-murder ideologues* from preventing their murder train.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did they *"liberate"* Iraq instead of saving the poor souls being massacred in *Sudan*? Cuz murder is good and natural. In fact, murder is life and Republicans love life, remember? Sure, they would say that there is a difference between murder (i.e. a black man killing a white woman) and spreading democracy (i.e. bombing the limbs off of children as they draw water from communal wells), but that is only to mask their bloodlust.
> 
> 
> 
> *7. You shall not **commit adultery*
> 
> 
> 
> Newt Gingrich. Bob Barr. John McCain. Rudy Giuliani. Christopher Buckley. Gary Bauer. *Matthew Glavin*. *Edward Schrock*. *Bob Livingston*. *Henry Hyde*.
> 
> 
> 
> *8. You shall not steal.*
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans steal what they want, when they want, and by any means necessary. They steal wages and rights from America and give it to their friends. They steal from the military, from oil rich countries, and from nature. They even steal little things they don't need, like *$1,125.79* worth of personal airline tickets, *Mexican flags*, *farm equipment*, and *odds-and-ends* from Target stores.
> 
> 
> 
> *9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Like murder, *lies* are a favored *vehicle for advancing* Republicanism. Whether its Ann Coulter's repeated violation of *literary objectivity*, or David Horowitz' chronic *invention of facts* to prove baseless points; or Bill O'Reilly's *habitual lies* in support of Bush; or, King Bush's prettying up of *pre-war intelligence,* lies are an alternative energy source for the GOP bus.
> 
> 
> 
> Without *lies*, they could not gather their idiot legion into a remarkable voting force. Because this is a truism about Republican power, they have perfected their network in a total conspiracy to continually bear false witness.
> 
> 
> 
> *10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.*
> 
> See number 7!


Why are your expending/Wasting 3 posts answering Bond, including this monumental Blockbuster? Ridiculous multi-posting throughout the thread and it looks desperate/nutty. He's worth about one sentence of dismissal.
Whacked.


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> Why are your expending/Wasting 3 posts answering Bond, including this monumental Blockbuster? Ridiculous multi-posting throughout the thread and it looks desperate/nutty. He's worth about one sentence of dismissal.
> Whacked.


Ha ha
do I ever post much more then a sentence or two most of the time  ? This is a copy paste. It will keep him busy for a while.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Why are your expending/Wasting 3 posts answering Bond, including this monumental Blockbuster? Ridiculous multi-posting throughout the thread and it looks desperate/nutty. He's worth about one sentence of dismissal.
> Whacked.


Why are you lol?  Just think how gravity (Jesus) will stretch you and Dagosa together for all eternity.  You two can discuss how I am doing in heaven!


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Good grief…..if you believe the wrath of god as a response to the evil doers, it has to be the gop who hate the poor, minorities and the oppressed. You know, all those people repugs try to fuck over.


I'm here to tell the truth to all including atheists and sinners.  Not tell the unforgiven of their doom; That's from their own doing.

The truth is it is God who punishes with His wrath.  It's not Satan who just led you awry with evolution.

As for the GOP who hate the poor, minorities, and the oppressed (are you one of the latter), you're in the wrong section of the forum to complain.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Alas not hyperbole.
> This section is about 50% Evolution vs Creationism.
> Majority of what I do here. ie, Check my many threads on this page alone. Most of the time I just bump them up because we get the same denier claim, and I have a thread which already covers most of them. ie, "God of the Gaps" is the most common along with 'only a theory.'
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are the best thing we have to describe nature/the universe.
> Most are facts.
> Read one more sentence from the link I quoted.
> 
> Science does Not deal in 100.0000% "Proof," only math does.
> Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence to call them 'facts.'
> In court, perps are oft found "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," and hung on what would NOT be enough to constitute the sci definition of 'proof" which is NO doubt/100%. But Evo has Overwhelming evidence that would and has won in court.
> 
> Poof does not exist for most of the Facts we spout daily and you accept either.
> Again read one more sentence from my link on what constitutes fact in science. Like 'theory' it's a higher bar than the colloquial use of the word.
> 
> Oh yeah, I CAN explain it/much more all day every day.
> Just about every week we get 'Only a theory' here because people do Not know what a scientific theory is. Thus the link.


I'm only answering you because it is one the DUMBEST things I've ever read here.  You take the cake as the STUPIDEST post ever more than Fort Fun Indiana, Wuwei, Hollie and others.

The facts are in the Bible.  This is in regards to God creating the universe, Earth and everything in it.  The 100% proof is in the Bible as the creationists have found science backs up what is written in it.

Thus, it's not just math that deals with 100% proof.

As for the rest of human science, then I agree that it does not deal with 100% proof.  We have learned that in high school that it deals with hypothesis and theories.

The stupidest part is that you claim "there is plenty of evidence to call them 'facts.'"  That is so stupid that I can't help from laughing and cannot stop and can't answer it because I know that you wouldn't understand it.  There are no hypotheses and theories that has so much evidence to call them facts.

Man, I wish there was some way here for you to hear all the people laughing at you including Fort Fun Indiana, Wuwei, Hollie and others.  It would be so LOUD that you would go deaf.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Fine admission, but don't worry. No one would even accuse you of being a purple one.


I doubt I'm a purple one either, but do know about the Bible which contradicts evolution.  Thus, only one of us can be right and that's me.  I'm the one who is right.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I'm only answering you because it is one the DUMBEST things I've ever read here.  You take the cake as the STUPIDEST post ever more than Fort Fun Indiana, Wuwei, Hollie and others.
> *The facts are in the Bible.  This is in regards to God creating the universe, Earth and everything in it.  The 100% proof is in the Bible as the creationists have found science backs up what is written in it.
> Thus, it's not just math that deals with 100% proof.*
> 
> As for the rest of human science, then I agree that it does not deal with 100% proof.  We have learned that in high school that it deals with hypothesis and theories.
> 
> The stupidest part is that you claim "there is plenty of evidence to call them 'facts.'"  That is so stupid that I can't help from laughing and cannot stop and can't answer it because I know that you wouldn't understand it.  There are no hypotheses and theories that has so much evidence to call them facts.
> 
> Man, I wish there was some way here for you to hear all the people laughing at you including Fort Fun Indiana, Wuwei, Hollie and others.  It would be so LOUD that you would go deaf.


Ahh here we are again Reverend Goofy!
Bible/god/Bible/god/Bible/god
"Circular Reasoning​circulus in demonstrando

*Description:* A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where NO useful information is being shared. *This fallacy is often quite humorous.*
.....
*Example #2:*

_The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible._

*Explanation:* This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. The circularity is in the stated or implied claim that the reason they trust in the Bible is because it is the Word of God.
This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.  Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads _“I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.  You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”  _
Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.""









						Circular Reasoning
					

A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.




					www.logicallyfallacious.com
				





Poor James and his dog-and-pony show outed again.
`


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I doubt I'm a purple one either, but do know about the Bible which contradicts evolution.  Thus, only one of us can be right and that's me.  I'm the one who is right.


You’re on the lunatic fringe of Christianity. You’re the one who is wrong……
Catholics and Mainline Protestant churches, such as the United Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, United Church of Christ, are accepting of evolution.

So we know you’re ignorant of what most Christians believe. You’re just making up shit.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Ahh here we are again Reverend Goofy!
> Bible/god/Bible/god/Bible/god
> "Circular Reasoning​circulus in demonstrando
> 
> *Description:* A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where NO useful information is being shared. *This fallacy is often quite humorous.*
> .....
> *Example #2:*
> 
> _The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible._
> 
> *Explanation:* This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. The circularity is in the stated or implied claim that the reason they trust in the Bible is because it is the Word of God.
> This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000.  Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads _“I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate.  You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.”  _
> Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.""
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circular Reasoning
> 
> 
> A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.logicallyfallacious.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor James and his dog-and-pony show outed again.
> `


Lol, everyone knows you fail common logic here.  It's cause and effect.  God created the universe, Earth and everything in it and that's why we are here.  He also wrote the Bible to explain what happened with the first humans and original sin.  The creationists can explain origins and why everything is here and science backs the Bible up.

What do you have?  Just faulty complaints about fallacious reasoning.  The fallacy is evolution as it has no origins nor evidence to back up anything.  Where are the humans from monkeys evidence?  Where are the birds from dinosaurs evidence?  In fact, cancel the second question as we found birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  You can cancel the first question, too, as we have monkeys living with humans today.  Hey, I just proved you are the stupidest here believing in evolution and trying to present logical arguments versus me lmao.

I even have 100% absolute proof for my claim after the atheists here die.  You can't ask anymore 100% truth than that.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Lol, everyone knows you fail common logic here.  It's cause and effect.  God created the universe, Earth and everything in it and that's why we are here.  He also wrote the Bible to explain what happened with the first humans and original sin.  The creationists can explain origins and why everything is here and science backs the Bible up.
> 
> What do you have?  Just faulty complaints about fallacious reasoning.  The fallacy is evolution as it has no origins nor evidence to back up anything.  Where are the humans from monkeys evidence?  Where are the birds from dinosaurs evidence?  In fact, cancel the second question as we found birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  You can cancel the first question, too, as we have monkeys living with humans today.  Hey, I just proved you are the stupidest here believing in evolution and trying to present logical arguments versus me lmao.
> 
> I even have 100% absolute proof for my claim after the atheists here die.  You can't ask anymore 100% truth than that.


You have proof of nothing. You can’t even claim that Christianity doesn’t accept evolution which is your stated gateway to atheism. All these  major religious sects accept evolution.
You are a fraud as just the extreme literalists still think the wizard made man. 
“This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.”


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> You’re on the lunatic fringe of Christianity. You’re the one who is wrong……
> Catholics and Mainline Protestant churches, such as the United Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, United Church of Christ, are accepting of evolution.
> 
> So we know you’re ignorant of what most Christians believe. You’re just making up shit.


Okay, if I am wrong, then where is the 100% proof against it?  I have my proof against atheists and the unforgiven here with the Bible, science backing up the Bible such as global flood, our existence, explanation of how it was done, and logical argument against evolution.  As for theistic evolutionists, they are in the minority just like atheists and evolutionists are in the minority.  The theists are still the majority.  The 100% absolute proof is in the atheists and unforgivens' deaths.

Next, how can I make this up when science agrees with me and the Bible was written in ancient times and cannot change?  The Bible is still true to this day and refutes evolution.

>>“This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.”<<

This isn't true.  Check out Pew Research or present something to back up your wrong beliefs.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Okay, if I am wrong, then where is the 100% proof against it?  I have my proof against atheists and the unforgiven here with the Bible, science backing up the Bible such as global flood, our existence, explanation of how it was done, and logical argument against evolution.  As for theistic evolutionists, they are in the minority just like atheists and evolutionists are in the minority.  The theists are still the majority.  The 100% absolute proof is in the atheists and unforgivens' deaths.
> 
> Next, how can I make this up when science agrees with me and the Bible was written in ancient times and cannot change?  The Bible is still true to this day and refutes evolution.
> 
> >>“This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.”<<
> 
> This isn't true.  Check out Pew Research or present something to back up your wrong beliefs.


We can play this game where you pretend to know everything….but you’re wrong. Do you doubt.  the Catholic Church position ? Really, you’re FOS with every post. So admit it, formally Christianity is an atheist institution according to your bloviation….……most believe  in evolution.








						Episcopal Church: Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution
					






					pandasthumb.org


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Okay, if I am wrong, then where is the 100%


Wrong Toto. You made the claim. I only have to show youre ideas are idiotic once.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> We can play this game where you pretend to know everything….but you’re wrong. Do you doubt.  the Catholic Church position ? Really, you’re FOS with every post. So admit it, formally Christianity is an atheist institution according to your bloviation….……most believe  in evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Episcopal Church: Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pandasthumb.org


I don't pretend to know everything in creation science nor the Bible, but I know the creation science beats evolution since there isn't any evidence for macroevolution.  Also, your posts are FOS instead of mine. 

Let's face it.  The majority still believes in God at 63% more than atheism.  Atheists are around 4%.  Read it and weep -- 10 facts about atheists.









						Christianity Archives
					

Research and data on Christianity from the Pew Research Center




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Okay, if I am wrong, then where is the 100% proof against it?


Where's your proof against Vishnu and Voodoo?
It's just a belief/faith there is no proof or disproof.




james bond said:


> I have my proof against atheists and the unforgiven here with the Bible, science backing up the Bible such as global flood, our existence, explanation of how it was done, and logical argument against evolution.  As for theistic evolutionists, they are in the minority just like atheists and evolutionists are in the minority.  The theists are still the majority.  The 100% absolute proof is in the atheists and unforgivens' deaths.]\


There's no proof of a flood against Atheists in the bible.
There a flood Myth that many superstitious clowns believe was their flood.
In fact you can't show worldwide flood anywhere.



james bond said:


> Next, how can I make this up when science agrees with me and the Bible was written in ancient times and cannot change?  The Bible is still true to this day and refutes evolution.
> 
> >>“This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.”<<
> 
> This isn't true.  Check out Pew Research or present something to back up your wrong beliefs.


Science does not agree with you and the bible you pulled out of your Fecal hole.
That's why you rail against science.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> Where's your proof against Vishnu and Voodoo?
> It's just a belief/faith there is no proof or disproof.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof of a flood against Atheists in the bible.
> There a flood Myth that many superstitious clowns believe was their flood.
> In fact you can't show worldwide flood anywhere.
> 
> 
> Science does not agree with you and the bible you pulled out of your Fecal hole.
> That's why you rail against science.
> 
> `


You are talking to a guy who says the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. You are wasting your time.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Where's your proof against Vishnu and Voodoo?
> It's just a belief/faith there is no proof or disproof.


Where's yours?  You're the atheist.  The Christians have the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  We have had the most famous scientists of all time.  That's your proof for Christianity.

Just admit that you have no proof for atheism and that it's faith in wishful thinking.  You can't even quote what Darwin or any other atheist scientist said to back up your arguments.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are talking to a guy who says the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. You are wasting your time.


You're another hopeless one.  I keep saying science backs up the Bible and have posted much evidence for it.  The Bible also gives us human history, but evolution doesn't have any.  That's how I know it's a lie and fake science.  There is no science that backs it up.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Where's yours?  You're the atheist.  The Christians have the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  We have had the most famous scientists of all time.  That's your proof for Christianity.


*Science does not back up the Bible
You Rail against Science all the time.
There's only a few fake 'Creation Science' websites that 'back up' the Bible.

and You PLAIARIZED one a few pages back you FRAUD*



james bond said:


> Just admit that you have no proof for atheism and that it's faith in wishful thinking.  You can't even quote what Darwin or any other atheist scientist said to back up your arguments.


*That's really Funny. Many of my thread starts here quote Scientists. 
My sig one of THEE most prominent: IOW, in every post.*

You have ZERO except your Circular reasoning
Bible/god/bible/god/Bible you couldn't refute was/is Circular reasoning
*Then you threw in/PLAGIARIZED an AnswersInGenesis as your 'science.' That's just "Bible" again!!!
Circle J Ranch! No rebuttal.*

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *Science does not back up the Bible
> You Rail against Science all the time.
> There's only a few fake 'Creation Science' websites that 'back up' the Bible.
> 
> and You PLAIARIZED one a few pages back you FRAUD
> 
> 
> That's really Funny. Many of my thread starts here quote Scientists.
> My sig one of THEE most prominent: IOW, in every post.*
> 
> You have ZERO except your Circular reasoning
> Bible/god/bible/god/Bible you couldn't refute was/is Circular reasoning
> *Then you threw in/PLAGIARIZED an AnswersInGenesis as your 'science.' That's just "Bible" again!!!
> Circle J Ranch! No rebuttal.*
> 
> `


Of course, science _backs up_ the Bible.  I already provided the youtube and other evidence.  You are too funny and in denial of Satan (who has got you good).

Now, all you can do to validate your life is criticize me.  That's even more evidence.  Your _hate_ of God and me is growing every day and thinking what I post is circular reasoning.

Anyway, I should not talk with you much as you're not a great nor fun person to hang out with .


----------



## Wuwei

abu afak.   He is playing you and you are falling for it. He does this for his amusement; not for any sensible dialog.


----------



## abu afak

Wuwei said:


> abu afak.   He is playing you and you are falling for it. He does this for his amusement; not for any sensible dialog.


Whatever you say, but you are a mb amateur, I am a 20 year professional.


----------



## JohnDB

Oh about 10-20 years ago scientists came up with a gravity equation...one that more accurately predicts gravity...and it's opposite.  

Then all news of the formula disappeared.  

Meaning that it's classified information anymore.  Not unheard of...but that would mean that gravity is not a theory.  It's a postulate, provable and proven.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> abu afak.   He is playing you and you are falling for it. He does this for his amusement; not for any sensible dialog.


He is a sock puppet account of another poster. Notice he almost never posts any other section, not even the religious section


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Oh about 10-20 years ago scientists came up with a gravity equation...one that more accurately predicts gravity...and it's opposite.
> 
> Then all news of the formula disappeared.
> 
> Meaning that it's classified information anymore.  Not unheard of...but that would mean that gravity is not a theory.  It's a postulate, provable and proven.


No, that is not how scientific theories work. A scientific theory will always be a scientific theory.

Some scientific theories are facts.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, that is not how scientific theories work. A scientific theory will always be a scientific theory.
> 
> Some scientific theories are facts.


Well at any rate I'd like to see you try to defy that "theory" or postulate....

Let's see you walk on water.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Well at any rate I'd like to see you try to defy that "theory" or postulate....
> 
> Let's see you walk on water.


Right, some scientific theories are true.

True things are facts.

Like, the theory of evolution. Fact.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, some scientific theories are true.
> 
> True things are facts.
> 
> Like, the theory of evolution. Fact.


So you got the time lapse video of how it worked then?

I wanna see the equivalent of a tornado hitting a Home Depot and spitting out houses.  I'm ready anytime you got a YouTube link.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> So you got the time lapse video of how it worked then?


Why would anyone need that?

The theory of evolution boils down to the statement that all species originated from a common ancestor via evolution.

That's a fact. Deny it, and you are wrong.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why would anyone need that?
> 
> The theory of evolution boils down to the statement that all species originated from a common ancestor via evolution.
> 
> That's a fact. Deny it, and you are wrong.


Your proof?  I'm still waiting.  I'm not denying anything.  You claim it's a fact and not a theory...so where is the proof?  

You know...the whole frog/squirrel critter.  The inter-phylum creatures...

The half fish lizard with scales, gills as well as lungs and wings....
Or a YouTube video of it all happening.


----------



## abu afak

JohnDB said:


> Your proof?  I'm still waiting.  I'm not denying anything.  You claim it's a fact and not a theory...so where is the proof?
> 
> You know...the whole frog/squirrel critter.  The inter-phylum creatures...
> 
> The half fish lizard with scales, gills as well as lungs and wings....
> Or a YouTube video of it all happening.


*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."*









						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				





*`*


----------



## JohnDB

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> [.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
> 
> `*


Look,
I am unconcerned about the method God used to create life on the planet...

But when someone claims that they know beyond all doubt how it was done...I am curious as to what evidence they claim they have.  Especially when it defies the Law of Entropy.


----------



## abu afak

JohnDB said:


> Look,
> I am unconcerned about the method God used to create life on the planet...
> 
> But when someone claims that they know beyond all doubt how it was done...I am curious as to what evidence they claim they have.  Especially when it defies the Law of Entropy.


'Creating life on earth" (abiogenesis) is different from evolution.
Evolution/the diversity of life, starts after the First Spark, no matter how it started.

*There is NO "god" in EVIDENCE unless you'd like to post it.
(and claim your Nobel Prize, and put all the other gods/religions out of business)*
`Evolution OTOH, has overwhelming EVIDENCE.
`


----------



## JohnDB

abu afak said:


> 'Creating life on earth" is different from evolution.
> Evolution/the diversity of life, starts after the First Spark, no matter how it started.
> 
> *There is NO "god" in EVIDENCE unless you'd like to post it.
> (and claim your Nobel Prize, and put all the other gods/religions out of business)*
> `


Well, I have a theory that has at LEAST as much proof as yours does.  

You claim yours is right. 
I claim mine is right but doesn't discount yours at the same time.  (I know that I don't know the means it was accomplished by.  God said that He wasn't going to tell and I do believe Him) 

Your faith in God (or lack thereof) isn't really relevant to this discussion.  

All I asked for was proof that a theory was indeed a fact by providing proof that it happened in defiance of the Laws of Entropy.  That's all I'm asking for.  It's a unique occasion in the face of what is generally known and proven.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Your proof?  I'm still waiting.  I'm not denying anything.  You claim it's a fact and not a theory...so where is the proof?
> 
> You know...the whole frog/squirrel critter.  The inter-phylum creatures...
> 
> The half fish lizard with scales, gills as well as lungs and wings....
> Or a YouTube video of it all happening.


You are asking for proof of evolution?

Liar. No you aren't. You are tryingtoo waste my time. Why would I do your troll exercise of compiling the evidence that has convinced every intelligent adult and scientist on the planet, and lie it at your feet so you can shit on it?

Haha, no.

If an adult like you doesn't understand the evidence of evolution (which also means -- and I guarantee this -- you know less than nothing about evolution), then you should be embarrassed 9f yourself. And if you aren't willing to go look some up for yourself, that is definitive proof of your childish trolling and dishonesty.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Well, I have a theory that has at LEAST as much proof as yours does


Another lie.

You religious nutters need to take your shameless les back to the religion section,  where outrageous lies belong.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another lie.
> 
> You religious nutters need to take your shameless les back to the religion section,  where outrageous lies belong.


Im not foaming at the mouth....
However you most certainly are....once again proving that the Law of Entropy is fully in force.


----------



## abu afak

JohnDB said:


> Well, I have a theory that has at LEAST as much proof as yours does.
> 
> You claim yours is right.
> I claim mine is right but doesn't discount yours at the same time.  (I know that I don't know the means it was accomplished by.  God said that He wasn't going to tell and I do believe Him)
> 
> Your faith in God (or lack thereof) isn't really relevant to this discussion.
> 
> All I asked for was proof that a theory was indeed a fact by providing proof that it happened in defiance of the Laws of Entropy.  That's all I'm asking for.  It's a unique occasion in the face of what is generally known and proven.



Science doesn't deal in "Proof," it deals in theories affirmed by fact, evidence and predictability over time.
(see my post at top of the page)
Only math has "proof."
Science uses proof as 100%/absolute, Not as in court/that could hang a man "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
*Evolution does have "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" with an overwhelming circumstantial case.
Just that nothing is 100% except numbers. (as in 2 + 2 = 4)*

Evolution has been a more confirmed theory with every year and every New Science in the explosion of sciences in the 160 years since. ALL relevant ones are either consistent with it or directly help confirm it. (Isotopic dating, DNA, etc)

*God/godS not only have no proof but NO EVIDENCE. Nothing.*
And if something can't come from nothing, neither can a god.
Your selecta-Magic thinking has been warped your unfortunate indoctrination.

`


----------



## ding

JohnDB said:


> Especially when it defies the Law of Entropy.


It doesn't defy the SLoT from a thermodynamic standpoint.  Creating order from disorder requires energy and since there are no 100% efficient processes disorder was increased even if order was created from disorder.  

A good analog would be cleaning a messy room.  The room is more orderly but energy was used to create the order and since the use of that energy was not 100% efficient usable energy was lost to the system thus increasing the total disorder of the universe.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> The universe is not ordered, it's chaotic, stars exploding/galaxies colliding and very Hostile to life.
> The Galaxy IS a "messy room"..... and no evidence "it was "Hardwired for life." LOL
> These are your religious views.
> You can't debate me you little lying clown.
> `


I beg to disagree.  The very evolution of the universe followed an orderly progression; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and finally the evolution of consciousness.  Each and every process adhered to the laws of nature.  How does that not meet the definition of order.  In fact science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.  

But under no circumstance did any of the order created during the evolution of space and time result in a violation of the SLoT.  Which is what my post addressed.  

As for your belief that the universe was not hardwired for life and intelligence, your opinion is in the minority and not the opinion of the scientific community.  It is YOUR religion that disagrees with science.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> It doesn't defy the SLoT from a thermodynamic standpoint.  Creating order from disorder requires energy and since there are no 100% efficient processes disorder was increased even if order was created from disorder.
> 
> A good analog would be cleaning a messy room.  The room is more orderly but energy was used to create the order and since the use of that energy was not 100% efficient usable energy was lost to the system thus increasing the total disorder of the universe.


The Universe is a "Messy Room" with stars exploding/galaxies colliding.
The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years causing unimaginable damage to any life within either.
Part of an 'ordered plan' I guess.
Both galaxies have clearly been been 'sinners.' Yeah, that's it.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> The Universe is a "Messy Room" with stars exploding/galaxies colliding.
> The Milky Way will collide with Andromeda in a few billion years causing unimaginable damage to any life within either.
> Part of an 'ordered plan' I guess.
> Both galaxies have clearly been been 'sinners.' Yeah, that's it.
> 
> `


You are repeating yourself.   See post #610.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> You are repeating yourself.   See post #610.


You repeat your baseless claims endlessly
I repeat the answers.
There is no Evidence anyone "Hardwired the universe for life"
and no evidence it's an ordered rather than a "messy room.":
Stars exploding/galaxies colliding.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> You repeat your baseless claims endlessly
> I repeat the answers.
> There is no Evidence anyone "Hardwired the universe for life"
> and no evidence it's an ordered rather than a "messy room.":
> Stars exploding/galaxies colliding.
> `


I explained it to you in exquisite detail in post #610.  It has yet to be refuted.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I explained it to you in exquisite detail in post #610.  It has yet to be refuted.


And I answered immediately after.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And I answered immediately after.


Which was you just repeating yourself.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Which was you just repeating yourself.


Ditto.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Ditto.


Incorrect.  Post #610 was only posted once as a response to your post that you re-posted as a response to my post #610.  So, no.  Not ditto.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Incorrect.  Post #610 was only posted once as a response to your post that you re-posted as a response to my post #610.  So, no.  Not ditto.


Incorrect, I answered all of your posts, many because of your repetition of idiotic claims.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Incorrect, I answered all of your posts, many because of your repetition of idiotic claims.


Cool story.  So how long have you believed you live in a magical universe where cause and effect do not apply?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Cool story.  So how long have you believed you live in a magical universe where cause and effect do not apply?


And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
*You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.

`*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
> And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
> *You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.
> 
> `*


Holy shit... you are making the exact same argument in THREE threads.  What the fuck is wrong with you?

Like I said in the OTHER TWO THREADS.  We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.

Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it. Fair enough?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Holy shit... you are making the exact same argument in THREE threads.  What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> Like I said in the OTHER TWO THREADS.  We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.
> 
> Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it. Fair enough?


You keep making the same argument about cause and effect when no one knows the cause in this case..., yet!
Is that too tough for you?
You can't make causes up just because you don't know what it is/was.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> You keep making the same argument about cause and effect when no one knows the cause in this case..., yet!
> Is that too tough for you?
> You can't make causes up just because you don't know what it is/was.
> `


Are you seriously going to have the exact same conversation in three threads?

Like I said in the original thread...

I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons. We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this. I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game. I'm going to pin you down point by point.

The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Yes or no? I say yes. Science says yes. Only idiots say no. What do you say?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Are you seriously going to have the exact same conversation in three threads?
> 
> Like I said in the original thread...
> 
> I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons. We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this. I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game. I'm going to pin you down point by point.
> 
> The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Yes or no? I say yes. Science says yes. Only idiots say no. What do you say?


You engage in three, I'll answer in three.
*I brought in one relevant because you are attempting a classic 'God of the Gaps.'*
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> You engage in three, I'll answer in three.
> *I brought in one relevant because you are attempting a classic 'God of the Gaps.'*
> `


Incorrect.  You initiated the conversation in the original thread and then spread it to two others.  

Clearly you are not an intelligent person.  You probably work for minimum wage.  It would be illogical for me to continue discussing this with you.  Go ahead and say whatever you need to say to artificially inflate your ego.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Incorrect.  You initiated the conversation in the original thread and then spread it to two others.
> 
> Clearly you are not an intelligent person.  You probably work for minimum wage.  It would be illogical for me to continue discussing this with you.  Go ahead and say whatever you need to say to artificially inflate your ego.


We've been through who's intelligent and I documented mine.
You, OTOH, try to compensate with high frequency, not poignancy.
Every thread/topic pretty much.
`


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> abu afak.   He is playing you and you are falling for it. He does this for his amusement; not for any sensible dialog.


You too?  I am not doing this for amusement, but am serious.  Of course, I am serious about going to hell or heaven for eternity once someone dies.  I wish you atheists and sinners would beg for forgiveness, but you can't, i.e. faith in Satan and evolution.  That's why I can only argue for creation science here to prove God and creation.

You need to revoke your faith in evolution by begging for forgiveness and turn to Jesus.  Then you'd realize creation science and I are right!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Another lie.
> 
> You religious nutters need to take your shameless les back to the religion section, where outrageous lies belong.


Listen, Jesus exists just like gravity exists.  It's just my personal opinion that Jesus is gravity; That way no one can escape His judgement.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> We've been through who's intelligent and I documented mine.
> You, OTOH, try to compensate with high frequency, not poignancy.
> Every thread/topic pretty much.


You comment on mine with smileys, so I'll comment on yours.  There is no way you can document _your intelligence_ on threads as it isn't there, i.e. we would know, or else you could back up macroevolution or whatever you discuss with science.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You comment on mine with smileys, so I'll comment on yours.  There is no way you can document _your intelligence_ on threads as it isn't there, i.e. we would know, or else you could back up macroevolution or whatever you discuss with science.


Actually (and as always) you're wrong. I posted my Mensa membership card for Ding in another thread in Environment.
And I am in the more selective group above it: Intertel, as well.
Like 50-60 IQ points above where you are, you deranged Kweationist Klown.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Actually (and as always) you're wrong. I posted my Mensa membership card for Ding in another thread in Environment.
> And I am in the more selective group above it: Intertel, as well.
> Like 50-60 IQ points above where you are, you deranged Kweationist Klown.
> `


Lol, you are a Mensa dimwit then as you can't even figure out nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'.  You can't even explain that you have to have something to have cause and effect.  So what do you have?  Are you going to rely on the wrong atheist (atheists are usually wrong) Stephen Hawking?  Let's see you explain like Hawking.  You can't.


You gotta have somethin' to make it.

ETA:  Here's something more relevant to explain as you can't explain the above like Hawking; I've read his hypothesis on it.

Why don't you explain how many could get the Covid-19 virus on this forum?  I'm basing it on this article:









						COVID hits one of the last uninfected places on the planet
					

When the coronavirus began spreading around the world, the remote Pacific archipelago of Kiribati closed its borders, ensuring the disease didn't reach its shores for nearly two full years.  Kiribati finally began reopening this month, allowing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## james bond

james bond said:


> Lol, you are a Mensa dimwit then as you can't even figure out nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'.  You can't even explain that you have to have something to have cause and effect.  So what do you have?  Are you going to rely on the wrong atheist (atheists are usually wrong) Stephen Hawking?  Let's see you explain like Hawking.  You can't.
> 
> 
> You gotta have somethin' to make it.
> 
> ETA:  Here's something more relevant to explain as you can't explain the above like Hawking; I've read his hypothesis on it.
> 
> Why don't you explain how many could get the Covid-19 virus on this forum?  I'm basing it on this article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COVID hits one of the last uninfected places on the planet
> 
> 
> When the coronavirus began spreading around the world, the remote Pacific archipelago of Kiribati closed its borders, ensuring the disease didn't reach its shores for nearly two full years.  Kiribati finally began reopening this month, allowing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com


I know you couldn't you coward and Mensa dimwit.  ANTD.

ETA:  In a forum such as this, let's assume we have a pop of 200.  Out of that around 60 members would get the coronavirus.  From that about 3 members would die.  This is based on a random sample of 200 from worldometer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> Im not foaming at the mouth....
> However you most certainly are....once again proving that the Law of Entropy is fully in force.


Your crybaying will not help you. Your outrageous lies will not help you. This is the science section. You should probably never open your mouth about any scientific topic ever again.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your crybaying will not help you. Your outrageous lies will not help you. This is the science section. You should probably never open your mouth about any scientific topic ever again.


I'm fairly confident that you would prefer that... especially since you just got owned AGAIN.  I mean... you are fairly easy to beat at a battle of wits because you keep showing up unarmed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> I'm fairly confident that you would prefer that.


No, I just meant for the sake of your own pride.

Your embarrassing nonsense does not put a dent in science. Don't worry.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> We've been through who's intelligent and I documented mine.
> You, OTOH, try to compensate with high frequency, not poignancy.
> Every thread/topic pretty much.
> `


You display your intelligence with every post, dummy.  You're a joke.  Keep posting.  You are single handily destroying your cause.


----------



## Wuwei

abu afak said:


> Whatever you say, but you are a mb amateur, I am a 20 year professional.


Well, to me it really looks like he is playing you. He doesn't care what you reply; it's just a pointless game.

.


----------



## MizMolly

abu afak said:


> Another Dolt.
> Scientific theories, tho FACTS like Gravity, do not get "Proved."
> Only Math deals in "Proofs".
> Theories get affirmed over time and become Facts as well.
> Facts do not necessarily need "proof" just repeated true observation and predictability.
> 
> In fact, Most Murder convictions don't really have absolute "Proof," but lots of Circumstantial EVIDENCE that leads to Conclusions (not really "proof") beyond a reasonable doubt.
> Evolution has a better evidentiary case than most of those convictions.
> `
> `


It’s proof when you jump up, you come down, gravity proven.


----------



## Feeding Crows

OK, I'll join this discussion, at least about the gravity part...

Gravity doesn't exist the way we think it exists, as a separate force of physics. It's a combination of motion and mass warping space/time. Without motion, it would just be warping of space/time, and objects would stay where they are relative to other objects. It's motion, that sucks them in and causes the "effect" of gravity. And we're all moving incredibly fast compared to the universal focal point. There is no "gravitron" or any other particle like that, that causes us to stick to the Earth, it's a result of motion while the mass is bending space-time.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Think of a huuuge hose underwater, with a screen covering the front.

Move that hose, and things are going to get attracted to the screen. The faster it moves, and the larger the hose, the harder they will be stuck to the screen.

If the hose stops moving, relative to the water, everything will float freely away, no matter how big the hose. It's the motion that causes the attraction.


----------



## Feeding Crows

That's the 2D version of it. The 3D version is mind-blowing because you have to think of that attractive sensation that is coming from every side and every angle, as the object moves through space-time.


----------



## Brick Gold

Gravity is an actual physical phenomenon as all masses in space are attracted and combine.  How this works though is still a mystery


----------



## Feeding Crows

Yep, and that's what I'm talking about. It's not a separate particle. It's not a separate force. It is a combination of known particles and forces combined with motion. At least that's my theory... We're just looking at it the wrong way.


----------



## Brick Gold

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> Yep, and that's what I'm talking about. It's not a separate particle. It's not a separate force. It is a combination of known particles and forces combined with motion. At least that's my theory... We're just looking at it the wrong way.


Well there is something there causing it to happen that all matter has in common.  I would say its the electrons that are the driving force because they move the most but how could the electrons detect other electrons billions of miles away?  Quite the mystery.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Brick Gold said:


> Well there is something there causing it to happen that all matter has in common.  I would say its the electrons that are the driving force because they move the most but how could the electrons detect other electrons billions of miles away?  Quite the mystery.


It definitely is. And my sister brought up electrons, thinking that all electrons are actually just one. And it's all connected and only detectable once observed, but it's just one electron that circulates the universe instantaneously and is everywhere at all times and spontaneously regenerates once it is detected. . Hmm I don't know about that, but it's interesting thought-wise, because she may be on the right track...


----------



## Brick Gold

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> It definitely is. And my sister brought up electrons, thinking that all electrons are actually just one. And it's all connected and only detectable once observed, but it's just one electron that circulates the universe instantaneously and is everywhere at all times and spontaneously regenerates once it is detected. . Hmm I don't know about that, but it's interesting thought-wise, because she may be on the right track...


Difficult to believe in a single elerctron because that would suggest all matter is copied and projected into our dimension from another dimension that is made of a handful of particles.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Brick Gold said:


> Difficult to believe in a single elerctron because that would suggest all matter is copied and projected into our dimension from another dimension that is made of a handful of particles.


Yeah, and that would kinda go with quantum theory. But then again, i don't know. I just thought that it was thought-provoking. She's pretty smart...


----------



## Feeding Crows

So back to gravity, there is no particle or force that specifically causes gravity. It is mass (and the warpature that mass creates) and motion combined, that creates the attractive feeling we call "gravity".

So there's no particle or force that we can reverse to cause anti-gravity.

And I'm a huge UFO buff, so that kinda messes up my possible propulsion systems for a UFO/UAP.

So I hope I'm wrong. I'd rather hope for UFO/UAP and anti-gravity, because this world needs an intervention.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Actually, the propulsion system can still work! I need to think about this more, but it may explain erratic flight behavior by unexplained aerial phenomena. They're not using "gravity". They're just warping space-time and pulling a point towards them, and instantly traversing the two points. 

So, UFO's only travel in straight lines! Anybody who says a UFO can go in circles is lying. They grab a point in space-time and pull it towards them, and travel there instantly, in a straight line. Something that goes in circles is using aerodynamics, and you don't need that while in space. So things that can turn in a circular motion are man-made aircraft using air and lift. Things that instantly go in a straight line, even if it's an instant 90 degree change, is extra-terrestrial using space-warping.


----------



## abu afak

Brick Gold said:


> Difficult to believe in a single elerctron because that would suggest all matter is copied and projected into our dimension from another dimension that is made of a handful of particles.


I'm thinking electrons would make the ideal crypto-currency.
Easily stored in a small area.. or  quadrillions in your wallet.

`


----------



## Feeding Crows

Brick Gold said:


> Gravity is an actual physical phenomenon as all masses in space are attracted and combine.  How this works though is still a mystery


But back to this post. While it is a physical phenomenon, the next part of the sentence is what I disagree with, with my theory. All masses are not attracted. They just bend space (and time, but we can drop time for this conversation). Bending space does not cause attraction, especially when you view it from a 2D point of view, with Earth being the mass causing the distortion.

So let's take the classic example of a rubber sheet, with a bowling ball in the middle. On Earth, because of the Earth's gravity, the bowling ball will cause a dip in the middle, that a marble will sink into.

But in space, the bowling ball does not create a dip in the rubber sheet. Because there is no underlying mass. It's just a bowling ball in the middle of a rubber sheet causing a warpiture in the sheet. An object can only fall into the warpiture, if the mass has motion and is bending space as it goes. Without motion, like my underwater hose example, there is no attractive force.


----------



## Colin norris

abu afak said:


> I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
> The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
> 
> *Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory" *
> by Ellery Schempp
> Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
> 
> All physics textbooks should include this warning label:​​“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”​
> ​The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.​​First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.​​The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.​[...... Big snip........]​It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.​​Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” *If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow.* It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.​​Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.​`


Before you go  off completely,  evolution is not a theory in the sense you think a theory is.  Read the mean of theory. 
Evolution is no longer a theory.  It is proven fact by DNA and fossils.  Argue with that all you like but you're wrong.  

I know you have a person so attachment to the bible and want eternity etc but it is completely false and ignorant  to ignore facts.


----------



## abu afak

Colin norris said:


> Before you go  off completely,  evolution is not a theory in the sense you think a theory is.  Read the mean of theory.
> Evolution is no longer a theory.  It is proven fact by DNA and fossils.  Argue with that all you like but you're wrong.
> 
> *I know you have a person so attachment to the bible and want eternity etc but it is completely false and ignorant  to ignore facts.*



Deluded with -0- observational powers.
That article was sarcastic/humor.
ooops.
I am 100% Science and -0- Bible.
*Read MY thread starts in this Section. You haven't posted 1% of the evidence for Evo I have. NOT 1%.*
.
Take a look at the board or a few thousand of my posts.
You have no idea WTF you are talking about.
There is no pro-sci/anti-bible guy here that is even close to me.

I'm afraid YOU don't know what a Scientific theory is.
Science does not deal in "Proof," only math has proofs (2+2=4) in the absolute sense the word demands.
A person can be hung in a trial on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is NOT the 100.000% Science demands to be able to use the word.
So theories get affirmed over time until they are accepted facts.
That's it.

For the 100th Time, tho 95th to the other side.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*​By John Rennie - July 1, 2002​Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American​[.....]​*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*​​Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.​Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.​According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.​So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.​​*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."*​*The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"* The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence..."..."​​​Now **** off you blind idiot.​Look at my thread starts in this section beginner guy.​*I am Mr Evolution, you are a little burp in comparison.*​*`*​


----------



## Feeding Crows

I have read that 3 times, and have no idea...

I've tried to see your prior posts, but we are all blocked.

Somebody needs a hug.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> I know you have a person so attachment to the bible and want eternity etc but it is completely false and ignorant to ignore facts.


That's it Colin norris.  Kick that SAF idiot abu afak in the ass!!!  LMAO.  Did he tell you who is and what abu afak means yet?


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> That's it Colin norris.  Kick that SAF idiot abu afak in the ass!!!  LMAO.  Did he tell you who is and what abu afak means yet?


He said it meant your mother


----------



## Feeding Crows

i didn't believe it though...


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> That's it Colin norris.  Kick that SAF idiot abu afak in the ass!!!  LMAO.  Did he tell you who is and what abu afak means yet?


i have no idea what this is about, but I find it very funny!


----------



## Feeding Crows

I never saw Bond so pissed before!


----------



## Feeding Crows

Bond, you are a religious fanatic! And you bring all your fanatic friends to defend your fanatical beliefs. You only show up at the end, when your friends have been defeated.


----------



## Feeding Crows

You are the sock king, that has been defeated...


----------



## Feeding Crows

And now bond is going to bring his whole army against me, and say stuff that we have already disproven. 

Been here before, been banned before... 

Don't let them trap you into getting banned, because that is their goal. They are disproven, and are now out to do dangerous things.


----------



## Feeding Crows

I await to take bond on...


----------



## Feeding Crows

pussy won't post while I'm active. So I'll go offline for a while...


----------

