15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Indeependent]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves

Haha...in other words, all the scientists who have actually studied it. No, your reading of idiot creationist blogs does not qualify as study.

The scientists who have "studied it" are paid by the atheists who want to devalue human integrity.
There's no way a scientist with any integrity can explain how millions of different creatures can survive and evolve over hundreds of millions of years into a perfect eco-system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.

Oh, look! It's the Internet Scientist!
Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.

What an idiotic request. I am relating what researchers say. You, with probably barely a GED, are relating the deranged ramblings of religious morons with their brains stuck in the year 600.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The scientists who have "studied it" are paid by the atheists who want to devalue human integrity.

Another embarrassingly stupid talking point.

That's the thing about science: it doesn't show us what we want it to show us. It shows us what is, regardless of our childish religious fetishes.

You clearly know less than nothing about science and should shut up immediately. We have an entire section dedicated to religious dumbfuckery. I suggest you use it.

 

[Indeependent]

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.

Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.

Oh, look! It's the Internet Scientist!
Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.

What an idiotic request. I am relating what researchers say. You, with probably barely a GED, are relating the deranged ramblings of religious morons with their brains stuck in the year 600.

Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.

 

[luchitociencia]

This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.

Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented.

Concepts, eh? Then define time in physics. In your definition must be included that magic capability you input on it called "dilatation". Your definition must be testable and pass all requirements.

No definition of time fulfilling the asked requirements will automatically invalidate every theory where you use time.

I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion.

I'm a master in Sensation and Perception. Years studying and experimenting, I discovered a Law of Perception which establishes that we, humans, and our instruments can't perceive but the present. We perceive solely the present. You look at the cosmos, watch a far away galaxy, you are watching that galaxy in its present, which is simultaneous with your present.

NASA and other ignorant dudes, believe that your brain is capable to see the universe as it was in its past, and because similar idiotic ideas from them, is the reason you also believe that our perception is far from reality, the existing.

It is totally the contrary, our perception is what keep us alive, because we must perceive solely the reality of the universe in order to survive.

And yes, I'M A MASTER.

Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.

See? Those idiotic theories have made you stupid. You have abandoned knowledge and have adopted imaginations. You have started to talk peanuts.

Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.

Oh my... oh my... I have been discussing with a loony all this time...

 

[luchitociencia]

The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

Sure, your god is also subjective. And when you are hit by a car and you ended with a broken leg, do not worry about it, that is subjective, it is in your mind only....

...

... What a bump! ha ha ha ha

"Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

They want to input those ideas in your brain in order to validate the loony theories, After you believe everything is subjective, then they don't have to prove that time exists physically.

The world exists without you. You are not needed. You are just bacteria living in a particle of dust in the universe.

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive.

Water (liquid) when is heated can be vapor (gas) and when is forzen can be solid (ice). Its behavior changes. Water particles when travel in group form waves. Light is just a particle. When is alone is just a particle, and when travels in group forms a wave. What exclusivity are you talking about?

This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition?" (Issac Newton, Optics)

Before the fantasies of Einstein, science was going the right way, science based in observation of nature (reality) and explained with solid understanding.

After relativity and modern quantum mechanics (the quantum mechanics theory before it was mixed with relativity was going the right way) , science became a circus, full of clowns who claim nothing is real but mere illusions. Many modern scientists look for the most extraordinary stupidity ever invented, in order to make you idiot and make profit while doing it. The examples given by Ding are the best demonstration of the current phenomena.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

Sure, you make experiments with water, you receive an answer, you make experiments with vapor and you'll receive a different answer, and you make an additional test with ice, and guess what, you will also receive a different answer.

You make an experiment with a drop of water over your head, and you have an answer, you make another experiment but with a 2,000 gallons tank full of water released over you, and you surely will receive a surprised answer. Lol.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Eddington is the dude who made make ups to the plaques from the 1919 expeditions in order to make relativity prediction win over Newton's prediction. According to a review, Newton was the winner in that constest, but Eddington committed fraud to validate relativity against the aproval of all the involved scientists.

Three years later, in 1922, a member of the Swiss Academy announced that after a review, no other Nobel Prize will be given to Einstein for his Relativity theory, because it was found that Relativity was not science but philosophy.

This announcement is the origin of why Eddington said what he said, because there is no way you can prove Relativity as true unless you live in the world of imagination.

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

Einstein tried very hard but died without unifying his Relativity with quantum mechanics. Years later, by miracle, relativity was married to quantum mechanics in the middle of the night, no one took credit of such a marvel. There is only the explanation that "an error" was found in the formulas, but by "fixing it" then relativity and quantum mechanics can work together.

This distorted quantum mechanics is the one mentioned by Von Weizsacker.

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

He said "complementary".

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

Why you said that?

It is complementary for us, in order to recognize reality. But physical reality doesn't need you for you to exists as a universe.

In other words, you need the universe, but the universe doesn't need you.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious." George Wald

An idiot supporting another idiot.

Truth is that pride is the reason why so many scientists have no other choice but to continue with the farce.

An official recognition that relativity was always false is shame for England, the Queen of England, the State of Israel, the several institutions which honored the retarded as a genius.

This is why they protect themselves.

I'm asking you and others to show the mechanism acting in such time dilatation and you keep silence or deviate the discussion. I ask to define time, same, the definition given is crap and won't fulfill the in... inclusion of such flexibility to dilate. I ask to show the detection of time, and... funny, you come with comparison of clocks...

What you are talking definitively is not science, but you talk about magic, extraordinary dimensions which exist in your mind alone, because no one can detect them with instruments.

When I read your messages talking about science I just say... Oh my... oh my... what a droid... what a droid... sigh*

 

[ding]

The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

Sure, your god is also subjective. And when you are hit by a car and you ended with a broken leg, do not worry about it, that is subjective, it is in your mind only....

...

... What a bump! ha ha ha ha

"Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

They want to input those ideas in your brain in order to validate the loony theories, After you believe everything is subjective, then they don't have to prove that time exists physically.

The world exists without you. You are not needed. You are just bacteria living in a particle of dust in the universe.

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive.

Water (liquid) when is heated can be vapor (gas) and when is forzen can be solid (ice). Its behavior changes. Water particles when travel in group form waves. Light is just a particle. When is alone is just a particle, and when travels in group forms a wave. What exclusivity are you talking about?

This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition?" (Issac Newton, Optics)

Before the fantasies of Einstein, science was going the right way, science based in observation of nature (reality) and explained with solid understanding.

After relativity and modern quantum mechanics (the quantum mechanics theory before it was mixed with relativity was going the right way) , science became a circus, full of clowns who claim nothing is real but mere illusions. Many modern scientists look for the most extraordinary stupidity ever invented, in order to make you idiot and make profit while doing it. The examples given by Ding are the best demonstration of the current phenomena.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

Sure, you make experiments with water, you receive an answer, you make experiments with vapor and you'll receive a different answer, and you make an additional test with ice, and guess what, you will also receive a different answer.

You make an experiment with a drop of water over your head, and you have an answer, you make another experiment but with a 2,000 gallons tank full of water released over you, and you surely will receive a surprised answer. Lol.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Eddington is the dude who made make ups to the plaques from the 1919 expeditions in order to make relativity prediction win over Newton's prediction. According to a review, Newton was the winner in that constest, but Eddington committed fraud to validate relativity against the aproval of all the involved scientists.

Three years later, in 1922, a member of the Swiss Academy announced that after a review, no other Nobel Prize will be given to Einstein for his Relativity theory, because it was found that Relativity was not science but philosophy.

This announcement is the origin of why Eddington said what he said, because there is no way you can prove Relativity as true unless you live in the world of imagination.

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

Einstein tried very hard but died without unifying his Relativity with quantum mechanics. Years later, by miracle, relativity was married to quantum mechanics in the middle of the night, no one took credit of such a marvel. There is only the explanation that "an error" was found in the formulas, but by "fixing it" then relativity and quantum mechanics can work together.

This distorted quantum mechanics is the one mentioned by Von Weizsacker.

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

He said "complementary".

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

Why you said that?

It is complementary for us, in order to recognize reality. But physical reality doesn't need you for you to exists as a universe.

In other words, you need the universe, but the universe doesn't need you.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious." George Wald

An idiot supporting another idiot.

Truth is that pride is the reason why so many scientists have no other choice but to continue with the farce.

An official recognition that relativity was always false is shame for England, the Queen of England, the State of Israel, the several institutions which honored the retarded as a genius.

This is why they protect themselves.

I'm asking you and others to show the mechanism acting in such time dilatation and you keep silence or deviate the discussion. I ask to define time, same, the definition given is crap and won't fulfill the in... inclusion of such flexibility to dilate. I ask to show the detection of time, and... funny, you come with comparison of clocks...

What you are talking definitively is not science, but you talk about magic, extraordinary dimensions which exist in your mind alone, because no one can detect them with instruments.

When I read your messages talking about science I just say... Oh my... oh my... what a droid... what a droid... sigh*

I'm pretty happy how this conversation went.

 

[abu afak]

Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.

LOL
What an unbelievable pair of FALLACIES.
First the anecdote fallacy about "Your community" which is meaninglsss if you're a bible-belt moron living with non-biology scientists, or a dorm at Liberty University.
Evolution is the very foundation of Modern Biology.

And second, I don't know anyone who can explain a/all billion species and their ecosystems and certainly god/the bible doesn't do it AT ALL.

NEXT POS please.

`

 

[ding]

NEXT POS please.

Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Indeependent]

Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.

LOL
What an unbelievable pair of FALLACIES.
First the anecdote fallacy about "Your community" which is meaninglsss if you're a bible-belt moron living with non-biology scientists, or a dorm at Liberty University.
Evolution is the very foundation of Modern Biology.

And second, I don't know anyone who can explain a/all billion species and their ecosystems and certainly god/the bible doesn't do it AT ALL.

NEXT POS please.

`

I’m an Orthodox Jew...
Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.

It's because I'm a master. Do you want me to be humble when I am a master? Lol. Forget it!

If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion. I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space. My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am. Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.

Your mind is so narrow.

You say "time dilates because the speed of objects", but having that both are traveling at 29km/s around the sun, no matter how fast your brother travels in the airplane, both of you are traveling at the same speed anyway.

It should be a different scenario if your brother travels at greater speed than 29km/s, and even so, our solar system travels at 250km/s in the galaxy, so whatever is inside our solar system that is their speed. But wait, our galaxy moves at 630km/s. FRom here, if you believe that crap of flowing time, then time flows the same inside the total galaxy, and no matter how fast you travel inside of it, time won't dilate as long as you don't travel faster than 630km/s.

So, this is to demonstrate you that such idea of Einstein is nothing but crap to the square.

If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction.

Yes, use my Rolex and check its time data after two years in outer space. You will see that the malfunction of my Rolex will be way different than the malfunction of the atomic clock in the satellite.

Use a sand clock in the spaceship and all your crap is over in one dilated second... ha ha ha ha...

I'm a master.

The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion,

I just poster "variables" using different kind of clocks to check if your crap is true, but you know that the other clocks will definitively give you other results other than the distorted result of the atomic clock in space.

I m a master, I know.

All your test have zero value when you never tried using variables, which are the test of fire to verify the results of the atomic clock data.

when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.

Relativity is a debunked theory. Time doesn't exist, by consequence, time can't dilate.

I'm a master.

Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit. I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck.

I will respond to your silly argument with a graphic of mine, because I'm a master.

View attachment 366170

You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.

Your scientific theories are crap. You won't be able to discredit a single line, letter, word of my graphic.

Do you know why?

Because I'm a master.

Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized? Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim!

Idiot Einstein believed that gravity was caused by density of bodies, that's all he believed. Read his writings.

Even the stupidity of black holes was invented with that silly idea.

NASA is full of crap as well, when they also believe that they can see the universe as it was it is past... that is also laughable.

But don't worry about it, just follow my advice, go back to your school, demand your money back because your teachers taught you crap instead of physics.

I will teach you science based on reality. With me you finally will learn how the universe works.

Because... I'm a master.

I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll. In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results.

I didn't say that, but you can believe whatever you want.

That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!? Just. . . wow. I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right? Fuckin NASA. It ain't right what they've done to you.

Yes, it is MY credit, Silly Albert never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies related to gravity, he only related spinning to time dilatation. He was a loony and his theories were always good for nothing.

"Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid." This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding. Yes, everything in the universe is moving. No, it isn't all moving at the same speed. According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary.

So you agree with nothing in the universe is stationary.But later you claim time flows at different velocities.

Ok, now show me how you have detected those velocities of time. Remember that you can't use clocks because clocks are devices calibrated to solely make tic tic tic tic... Clocks can't detect any flowing time and perceive its "flowing".

Houston, a guy here has a problem....

Sheesss, I'm truly a master.

Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity. Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant. The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.

You and your "irrelevant" are going nowhere.

You talk of of available literature. Sure, pure crap theories. Face it, Einstein wasn't a genius but an idiot.

You say "recorded experimentation"m but you never used variables. Your experiments are all invalid if not incomplete.

You say, being observed by observing movement at different velocities. OK, light travels faster than you, so what?

You compete with light going to the Moon. A beam of light is sent to the Moon while you take a Uber spaceship going over there. At the time you have reached the Moon, the light has arrived already, part of it reflected on the surface and gone, another part absorbed. You can't even find where light hit on the Moon. Then, so what?

Reality is that such is all that will happen. Nothing more. Light traveled faster than you and that's all. No dilatation of time, no warping of space, no expansion of the universe, just you arriving way after light to the moon.

All your theories about relativity, and time dilatation are crap.

You better go back to your school, and do it before those fraudulent teachers retire and go away with your money. They have pulled your legs.

You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates. I never claimed to be an expert. In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory.

Look, a theory of science is not about predictions but EXPLANATIONS. Predictions are only the assumption of what could be the result in an experiment.

How it comes that relativity was accepted as a theory of science when Einstein never explained sh*t, such is a question to be answered by the idiots who follow that fantasy.

Lets say, you make your theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, and the mechanism is asked for you to explain how the sun travels from horizon to horizon. You can do like Ptolemy, and use mathematics alone, but such IS NOT an explanation. His calculations are very good, but the theory itself is crap.

You have with relativity the same scenario, pure abstract mathematics but zero explanation, zero facts.

I can guarantee you what I say because I'm a master.

From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars. I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.

You did good in discussing this topic with me. Hope you get deeper in those deluded theories but ask questions rather than getting impressed with their computer simulations and attractive pictures, which are just that, entertainment.

Demand the evidence that time really exists and flows. Tell them to show you the instruments used to measure the flowing of time. Remember, nothing else but the flowing of time. You will find out the whole theory is crappy without evidence supporting it.

I can tell because I'm a master.

Here's the fun thing, though. I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you. I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.

The example given to you was to demonstrate that if time "dilates" then the greater speed is what rules for it, and having the speed of earth as greater than yours and your brother's, then both of you should be experienced the same dilatation of time. The satellites travel in conjunction with earth at 29km/s around the sun, then, any difference between time data in atomic clocks is caused because one of the clocks suffers malfunction.

The atomic clocks are calibrated on ground zero. When exposed to a different environment, their calibration will suffer changes. This is a fact with everything you send to outer space. There are thousands of experiments of all kind performed in the space station, all of them prove and support my statements, all of them show changes without exception. Like mixing liquid metals that can't be mix on earth, or mixing water with cooking oil. You go to that space station and your heart becomes a circumference, and when you return part of your DNA has changed.

You have learned wrong science in the past, and here you are learning good and verifiable science.

A MASTER!? LMFAO! Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything. You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.

A master?

What are you talking about?

Are you saying I said I'm a master?!

Where? When?

I''m just a dude like you who is discussing science at a layman forum level.

Come on, you are confusing me with another guy...

I'm honestly going to have to apologize for even starting this conversation. I didn't realize I was going to try and discuss concepts like proving and disproving with someone who's literally going to continuously cite his own expertise for absolute dipshit claims.

Your rolex? A fucking sand clock? Yes, these are definitely sensitive and accurate enough time pieces to quantify the sort of tiny variations that would theoretically occur at such relatively small differences in speed as humans are capable of producing. Brilliant. Also, don't let the experiments using particle acceleration get in the way of your narrative. If you ignore them and just scoff at the velocity of an airplane being different than sitting on the beach, that basically proves Einstein was a dumbass.

Speaking of velocity, you're absolutely right. Only something moving faster, in relation to the earth, than the overall velocity of the earth travelling through space, has a different velocity from anything else on earth. Brilliant!

Also, your graph is amazing. Showing me a diagram on atmospheric lensing totally debunks the idea of gravitational lensing. How could TWO things affect light? Genius!

Speaking of light, you're absolutely correct. If time is real and is effected by velocity, then how come someone travelling to the moon on a spaceship can't find the evidence of a beam of light that left Earth for the moon at the same time? Fucking genius! I can't believe I've never thought of it like that! If time is real, where is the evidence of the light that's been absorbed on the moon? De-fucking-bunked! What a master!

I especially like when you blow "my" experiments out of the water. All of the experiments that anybody has ever done, they all ignored variables. No need to point to a single example. That blanket claim, when levelled by such a true MASTER, is as good as proof. Brilliant!

You're a master at intellectual autofellatio, and I'd wager very little else. For the record, I'm not saying that any of them are infallible and giving us gospel, and I'm not making any such claims about any theory or idea we've been discussing. But of course I've mentioned all of that before, and it hasn't stopped you from continuing to characterize everything I've said as though I'm some kind of zealot for every idea I discuss. I'm going to stop responding to you now, as the concept of relative velocity is clearly beyond your capacity, and because most of your "arguments" are based purely on your own unsubstantiated claims regarding every scientist and study you dismiss en masse.

 

[abu afak]

I’m an Orthodox Jew...
Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.

Tell me that's not so idiotic/Fallacious.
Orthodox Jews may be experts in the Torah/Talmud but not Biology.
Orthodox Jews believe in Creationism and Genesis, not 'hard science.'
What a stupid and anecdotal offer of proof.
You just Outed your "community."

I'm a secular/atheist Jew with a math degree and Mensa member.
Also joining Intertel/top 1% as Mensa is just top 2%.
You are so outgunned wittle guy.

`

 

[abu afak]

Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you're a biblical literalist.
Of course, your 'creator' has to compete with other 'creators,' while evolution/science is universally true.
`

 

[ding]

Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you're a biblical literalist.
Of course, your 'creator' has to compete with other 'creators,' while science is universally true.
`

Don't be silly.

 

[ding]

I’m an Orthodox Jew...
Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.

Tell me that's not so idiotic/Fallacious.
Orthodox Jews may be experts in the Torah/Talmud but not Biology.
Orthodox Jews believe in Creationism and Genesis, not 'hard science.'
What a stupid and anecdotal offer of proof.
You just Outed your "community."

I'm a secular/atheist Jew with a math degree and Mensa member.
Also joining Intertel/top 1% as Mensa is just top 2%.
You are so outgunned wittle guy.

`

Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.

I've read some of your posts. I'm not impressed. Let's go. Come at me, bro.

 

[abu afak]

Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.

I've read some of your posts. I'm not impressed. Let's go. Come at me, bro.

You never write more than one or two sentences. (and again below!)
And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
You're a ******* illiterate.

 

[ding]

I see a lot of clicking on reactions, but I don't see a walking of the talk.

 

[ding]

Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.

I've read some of your posts. I'm not impressed. Let's go. Come at me, bro.

You never write more than one or two sentences.
And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
You're ******* idiot.

So, you are saying you don't want a piece of me then?

Seems like if I am an idiot you wouldn't be afraid of proving it.

 

[ding]

Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.

I've read some of your posts. I'm not impressed. Let's go. Come at me, bro.

You never write more than one or two sentences.
And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
You're ******* idiot.

So you don't find it unusual that a universe which was created from nothing popped into existence ~14 billion years ago, especially since it is geared to produce intelligence?

 

[ding]

You never write more than one or two sentences.

Really? You can't say that you didn't ask for it.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Let's see what you got.