Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dark Matter was questioned in a previous post and and that question was answered.
Quite poorly, too.
"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
Um, the same can be said about Faith.
Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)
We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.
Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.
As I told Hick, I've seen people "refute" creationism by pointing to evolution.No, we realize that. It's the evolution-deniers who can't seem to accept that.
So, no, it doesn't look like you all realize that.
I used to debate "evolutionists" on Orkut and most of my time there was spent in explaining to them how evolution actually works so that I could point out why it is not an all encompassing theory. Some of them are still running around claiming that evolution is absolute proof that God does not exist. Funny thing is they are right, the God they do not believe in does not exist, that is not proof that God does not exist though.
Once again, you have demonstrated a stunning stupidity
Evolution refutes creationism because creationism says that humans were created by God "as is" and did not evolve. Evolution contradicts Creationism. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life itself in order to refute Creationism
But you are so dumb, you're still hung up on the idea that evolution does or should explain the origins of life itself. No matter how many times you are educated on this, you will continue to insist that the origins of life itself has something to do with evolution. You can't drop this idea because you are too dumb to realize how dumb you are. Here's a study that explains the phenomena of stupid people who are certain they are not stupid
Confident dumb people - Boing Boing
Does it?
Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.
Two sides of the same coin, why do the sciencers think that there is no God just because we live in a complicated universe?
Different "sciencers" believe in different things.
Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
I'm well aware of the disparate focuses on science and religion, as well as how some on either side pursue their chosen path exclusively. That doesn't make either side correct.
That said, your own lack of collecting and analyzing evidence (like your belief in the conclusion of this poll without any actual study on your part) says a lot about you. You have faith in something even you don't understand. How funny is that?
Originally posted by sangha
If you had admitted that you had made a mistake (ie a poor choice of words) from the beginning...
José;3130146 said:Origianlly posted by sangha
TTE is not the study of how complex structures arise from simpler ones. TTE says nothing about complexity.
Partially true. Evolution does not necessarily leads to more complex species, but complexity happened on Earth as a kind of side effect of evolution.
Or do you deny that Earth's higher organisms like reptiles, birds and mammals DID evolve from simpler life forms?
José;3130146 said:Originally posted by sangha
There is no such scientific "paradigm" which is why you can't link to any credible scientific corroboration. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support.
And yet, despite this UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, you can't cite ONE SINGLE bit of credible evidence to support your claim. All you have is a link that even Wikipedia refuses to support
That would be relevant if it weren't for the fact that science does not consider your wingnut "paradigm" to be science.
tsk, tsk, tsk...
I'm done "debating" with Hick and sangha.
If these two guys have the courage to deny the existence of one of the most fundamental scientific paradigms upon which the whole body of modern Cosmology, Astronomy, Anthropology, History and Sociology rests they are lost case that do not deserve my attention.
Explain dark matter and dark energy. We can't find it, can't see it, can't prove it exists, yet it is the only thing that holds the universe together. I don't know what your definition of magical is, but that sounds a lot like magic to me.
We know when something exists when we can "measure" it. Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
The same with Dark Matter. We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect. The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
Scientists "live" for questions. They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day. The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons. They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
Once again for the intense moron:
STAH said nothing about your intent. He merely pointed out that NO ONE WILL READ the info you posted. *I* was the one who mentioned you intent
You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
That isn't even grammatically correct, nevermind scientifically accurate.
Why is it exactly is it that you need to put people down? What good does it serve? Do you honestly think that it elevates you or your position?
What concern is it of yours? Further, You did not know my intent, and were not qualified to speak on it. You make many assumptions, mostly wrong.
You use cut and paste because you are unable to express ideas in your own words. You do not have the brain power to do so. You constantly make this obvious with your fuzzy and meaningless pronouncements of profound obscurity like "That is a conclusion based on a theory" and your latest "It is of the foundation of Evolution Theory"
Prove that I am unable to express my own ideas. Prove that you know the limits of my brain power. Prove that my statements are meaningless. What Theory doesn't have questions? Limits? Conclusions? Show me the main stream view of Modern Evolution Theory, and where my Link contradicts it? I am warning you again about derailing Threads and insulting Posters.
You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
And if you want proof that you are unable to express your own ideas, just read ahead in your own post. When you get to your question "What Theory doesn't have questions?" ask yourself "Do theories have questions, or do people have questions about theories?"
You are just as nasty as anyone else here, so stop pretending you're a prince. You dont fool anyone. That's why everyone IGNORED your post and your foolish attempts to direct the discussion.
We know when something exists when we can "measure" it. Only a very tiny percentage of the energy spectrum is made of "visible" light, yet we know it exists.
The same with Dark Matter. We know it exists because it creates a peculiar "lensing" effect. The same effect that large planets create with their gravitational fields which "bend" light.
Scientists "live" for questions. They admit they only possess a tiny bit of knowledge, but that knowledge is growing every day. The religious want to "block" that knowledge growth, except for weapons. They believe bigger and better "weapons" will "keep us safe".
Mapping Dark Matter with a Cosmic Lens : Discovery News
You just proved you know less about science than even I gave you credit for, which is not very much.
Scientists do not know that either dark energy, which is not electromagnetic energy we cannot see, or dark matter exists. They believe dark energy exists because the universe is expanding faster than it should be given the vast amount of energy, both visible and invisible, that we can detect. They believe dark matter exists because the mass of the universe is more than the mass of all the possible galaxies.
Notice the words I used here. Scientists believe, they do not know. If we take your rather limited knowledge of science and your insistence that science and belief, faith, are completely incompatible, we are left with the demonstrated fact that we cannot explain the universe. The only way to explain the universe is hypothesize, or SWAG (scientific wild assed guess).
Explain to me again how that does not fit your definition of magical.
Because you had to lie in order to make your point
Scientists do not "believe" in dark matter; they suspect it exists and have offered HYPOTHESES about it
I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith.
You also said that scientists believe in dark matter, which is a lie
Quite poorly, too.
"We don't know what it is but we can see its effects."
Um, the same can be said about Faith.
Can you please stop making stuff up (ie lying)
We know what black matter is. We don't know everything abou it, but we know it exists.
Just like you exist even though we'll never know everything about you.
We do not. You will not find any educated person who says that dark matters is known to exist. Dark matter is a hypothesis to explain otherwise inexplicable observations. Some people point to the inexplicable and claims that it proves dark matters exists, but no scientist will do that because they know that amounts to circular logic, since dark matter is made up to explain those observations.
I can see why you're reluctant to accept your beliefs being distilled down to a small graphic.
Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".
Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
Atheism is not a belief. It's a "lack of belief".
Think of "heat and cold". Heat is energy. Cold is a lack of heat. Heat is NOT a lack of cold because heat is energy and cold is nothing.
Mysticism and the occult are "beliefs" without evidence. Atheism isn't a "belief", it's a "lack" of belief.
Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
Actually, atheism is a lack of belief. What you are thinking of is anti-theism. Many people who call themselve "atheists" are in fact "anti-theists", or as I like to refer to them...Hate-theists
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
Very good Sunni. We act on what we think we know, which is part of our nature. As what we think we know changes, we resist that change, generally preferring preconceived notion to reality and truth. This also is part of out nature. Humbleness a good tool, in that it generally keeps the fall from the loft a shorter distance.Truth, in the end, educates, generally our youth, more open to acceptance of new perspectives. I'm not saying new perspectives, or any perspective should be taken at face value, but tested and compared, which is where science serves the truth, yet only where integrity is maintained. Separating what we know from what we think we know, what we assume, be it in science or religion, or any other aspect of life, is where we tend to lose it, by nature, and design. When we stray, trouble awaits.
Nothing in science is ever really "known". There are no "beliefs". What there is, is "skepticism". Science is all about "skepticism".
"Skepticism" is NOT allowed in religious beliefs.
Those who can't understand this basic difference between the supernatural and science, are probably identified as "religious".
The religious try to pigeonhole science into terms they can understand so their "choice" makes sense. Turn science into a belief. Then say, "See? Science doesn't have all the answers and sometimes it's wrong". While religion has "ALL" the answers and it's never wrong.
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you! 27 Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.
28 Thomas said to him, My Lord and my God!
29 Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
John 20:24-29 NIV
Those of us who recognize science are always ready to accept that an old accepted "truth" is no longer correct when new discoveries/evidence is produced.
Unlike religion...
Please explain why scientists, when faced with incontrovertible evidence, rejected Copernicus and clung to the geocentric view of the universe. So much so that even a century later they rejected Galileo and his telescope. YOu seem to have an irrational belief in the rational nature of scientists despite overwhelming evidence that they are only human, and thus both fallible and petty.
You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat". Heat is energy. Cold is "lack of energy".
The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature) as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
You could no more show someone a "piece of cold" than you could a "piece of heat". Heat is energy. Cold is "lack of energy".
The point is that just because you cannot prove something, it is not proof that something doesn't exist. The issue may be that something indeed does not exist, that is a given. The issue may also be in knowledge or capability. Maybe a day will come when the existence of cold can and will be proven.
Then your point is a straw man. No one here has argued that the lack of evidence proves non-existence. No One. Not One Person. You Made It Up.
And no, the existence of cold will never be proven because cold is defined (when used to describe temperature) as the lack of heat. In fact, even when used in a non-scientific manner (such as describing a persons' personality as "cold") the word cold is usually used to note a lack of something.
Summary: You are consistently wrong about nearly everything you say
Those phrases are shorthand for observational facts. "Dark matter," at its base, refers to virial theorem violations and unexpected galactic rotation curves; "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles (since corroborated through other observational means). These are facts, not magic. Now, fitting them into existing models and extrapolating from there may be considered some weak form of faith, but then there are folks looking to construct new models from these observational facts instead of reconciling them with the frameworks that already exist. Eventually someone is going to be vindicated empirically. Such is science.
I never said they were magic. I said they sound like magic, or faith. We see something we cannot explain, and take a guess at to why it is happening. Then we look around for evidence that refutes or supports the guess. Since the only thing we have to either refute or disprove either of these concepts is the stuff we cannot explain we cannot use that as evidence of the guesses.
These concepts sound like magic if you confuse the colorful phrases that have gained popularity to describe them with the actual science itself.
Are you joking? I (wrongly, it appears) assumed you knew a bit about cosmology. You're mixing up not only the concepts of dark matter and dark energy here but their usage in my post (see my post: "dark energy" is systematic redshift-apparent brightness anomaly in standard candles). A standard candle is an astronomical object whose absolute magnitude is fairly well-known, meaning their apparent magnitude can be used to gauge distance. Type Ia supernovae are the standard candles I'm referring to here, as they're what was used to discover the first evidence of dark energy twelve years ago.BTW, where did you get the idea that dark matter explains anything we observe with candles? Did you Google it and read something about candlepower and jump to the wrong conclusion? The distortion of the light from a single candle due to the possible existence of dark matter would be indistinguishable from the effects of the gravity from the mass of the Earth.
The fact that you thought a standard candle is an actual wax candle is kind of mind-boggling.
Because they can measure the effects of "Dark Matter". Did you bother to visit the site? If they can "map it", then something exists.
Does it?
Can you post in complete sentences? I have no idea what you are asking about.
You claimed that evolution disproves creationism, I posted a complete interrogatory statement in reply. How long have you had this reading comprehension problem?
