Enoch2021

Royal Member
  • Content count

    2,680
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Enoch2021 last won the day on June 19 2016

Enoch2021 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,879 Excellent

4 Followers

About Enoch2021

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 12/26/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Missouri
  • Interests
    The Word of GOD!
    Microbiology/Biochemistry
    /Physics/Genetics
    Young Earth Creationist

Recent Profile Visitors

1,405 profile views
  1. Yep, Religion -- 'Belief' without Evidence; and taking the word of Priests (The Pseudo-Science Variety). Yep, Religion. They're not 'experts', they're Priests (The Pseudo-Science Variety). You can't even DEFINE IT! Phlogiston provided more 'rational' answers. Well my position on the Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetics is "UNSHAKABLE"... is that 'Religion' ?? Yea, like what IT IS. That's a pretty big 'Uncertainty'. Post them...? Yep. Says who...? So "The Scientific Method" meaning Errr... ONE, has no Standard? It doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone conceptual coherency. 1. "Science" isn't an Entity, it's a Method-- a "Concept"... The Scientific Method -- It has no Physicality, nobody can put it anywhere let alone in "A Box"; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. 2. Implicit Appeal to Motive/Intent (Fallacy). You don't need to Explicitly say it, merely Imply it...and you went above and far beyond the call here. 1. Key Phrase again: "believe". 2. Nobody said they were stupid. 'Religion' is playing a MONSTER Role here...along with Job Security. 3. Gaping holes in "Their Theory"?? Which "theory" might that be...? Read this 5 Times slowly... WHAT do you 'believe'...? THEN... don't just give examples, give the MECHANISMS ? mmM K? Defend What...? Well post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution along with--You remember: a. c. d. and e. --- and we'll see if I was 'Assuming". Well we're gonna see. If you would have said "Cherry Blossoms" it would have had more veracity. regards
  2. Well you made the claim in respect to your 'belief' in it...I'm shocked you have no idea in what you believe. Go find a "Biologist" and bring them in here to tell us what "YOU" believe... and, they'll wish they never heard of "Biology" when I'm through with them !! So you don't know what you 'believe'; That's reaaallly scary sir. You "think"?? Based on what? Ahhh... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables". "The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is supreme"and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html It's not that hard. I do listen and read your (and everyone's) claims, quite intently; However, your "Claims" are Unmitigated Disasters both Logically and Scientifically as I have Illustrated Point by Point, Ad Nauseam. Your lack of Acumen in these discussions doesn't Ipso Facto = negative intent by others. It merely means... you have a lack of Acumen and would be WISE to stop commenting on your "beliefs"-- that you don't know about, and start educating yourself on your "beliefs". Establish the Latter before engaging in the Former. So when you get CHALLENGED by people who have done their Homework, you'll be able to stand and give 'Coherent' Account... rather than cry about how you're being treated. I mean gimme a break. This is tantamount to Mr. Magoo stepping into the ring with Mohamed Ali and in the midst of Mr. Magoo getting his ears boxed in... appeals to Ali by stating that he really hasn't prepared for the Heavy Weight bout and Ali should stop being a Jerk by PUMMELING HIM !!! smh I beg to differ. You said... Bonky: "I just have a hard time being convinced that tens of thousands of field researching biologists are just ignoring major gaps/holes in their research."--- Appealing to Consensus of Nameless Faceless TENS OF THOUSANDS "Field Researching Biologists" and their implied adherence to "evolution (Whatever That Is??) is the Textbook Definition of it... Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy)-- a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. http://www.nizkor.org/feature s/fallacies/appeal-to-populari ty.html How in the World can you claim a Straw Man when you appealed to your BEST PROOF "GENETICS" of the Fairytale that you believe in (but don't know about )... Which then, I commented on with the Fundamentals of "GENETICS", Pray Tell??? Do you know what a Straw Man Fallacy is?? Straw Man (Fallacy)--- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. http://www.nizkor.org/feature s/fallacies/straw-man.html Are you claiming Genetics is Straw Man Fallacy to... Genetics?? regards
  3. 1. a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 2. "evolution" is a 'Religion'... "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular RELIGION — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a RELIGION. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000. Well Judge Jones' (aka: ACLU) Science Acumen... rivaled yours !! ; that's why he was laughing. (Ignorance is Bliss. ) SEE my FULL Exposition EXPOSING the Dover Trail Kangaroo Court, Here (You Tube): Science vs Scientism Ep. 10 - Evolution and Irreducible Complexity. See my previous responses in this Thread (and many others) EXPOSING "Your" Trainwreck Science Acumen. regards
  4. a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 1. Why (??), they're not Scientists. 2. Argument Ad Populum (Fallacy). What on Earth is a "Transitional Animal" and... what does it mean anyway? 1. SEE: "evolution" what's that?? THEN answer a. b. c. d. e. Above. 2. Genetics?? Begging The Question (Fallacy) -- Where'd you get Genes?? Start Here... 1. "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.That's just the Hardware! To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed Spontaneously/Naturally "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism from: Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively: CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin ! Conclusion from the Grand Poobah's of OOL Research... "We conclude that the direct synthesis of the nucleosides or nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of related molecules could NOT BE achieved by presently known chemical reactions." Gerald F. Joyce, and Leslie E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," p. 18 The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993. Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words (Literally), after more than 50 Years of OOL Research... "However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “If Pigs Could Fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology. http://journals.plos.org/plosb iology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjo urnal.pbio.0060018 Then the WOOLLY T-REX in the Room... 2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? “DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its INFORMATION using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff — hardware — but as INFORMATION, or SOFTWARE. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.” Paul Davies PhD Physics http://www.guardian.co .uk/education/2002/dec/11/high ereducation.uk Please Explain...? regards
  5. It's 'a bit' more than "Seems". Yes and Neither is the "Spinning-Ball". WHY?? Well because The Scientific Method only adjudicates How/Why -- Cause and Effect questions. The SHAPE of something is a "What/Is" question. It's tantamount to asking: How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False? And your appeal Unequivocally Demonstrates that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Especially your thread where the "Spinning Ball" was summarily PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion. Thanks, btw. 2 - 7 = -5 is "Proven"; However: 2 Apples - 7 Apples = -5 Apples. Can you show us -5 Apples ?? Mathematics isn't "Science". duh Huh?? Please Define: 1. "Scientific Prediction"...? 2. "POST"- diction...? 3. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...? Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of your "arc Prediction" trainwreck and place it in the appropriate category above...? It was NEVER "Scientifically Validated" to begin with. It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider... much less attempt, to disprove Complete Augments from Ignorance Fallacy; of which, evolution and einstein et al are Card Carrying Members of. Thanks Again!
  6. Yes, it does. You said 'gravity' was "A Force"; Einstein's "gravity" is NOT "A Force". simple Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania. btw, 'Space-Time' was "Debunked" by Quantum Mechanics 6 ways from Sunday. (SEE: Non-Locality and every single Delayed Choice Experiment ever conducted) Well "Relativity" is allegedly a Scientific Theory but... "Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a LAW DESCRIBES WHAT NATURE DOES under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW NATURE WORKS..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science." http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process) and Identify The CAUSE; e.g., Germ Theory. Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED. "Scientific Laws": "describe" ---The What/IS (The How/Why and "CAUSE" is N/A). They are based SOLELY on OBSERVATIONS of 'Natural Laws'. Often expressed mathematically. e.g., 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Please... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENTS that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in each TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? regards
  7. Scientifically Validate 'millions of years'... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? a. 'evolution' What's that...?? Define evolution...? b. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? c. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? d. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? e. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? I Personally PUMMEL Professor PZ Myers and: Chromosome 2, Common Descent, Tree of Life et al, here (You Tube ): Professor PZ Myers and "Semi"-- Atheist Round Table DEBUNKED (Science vs Scientism series Ep. 14) "Species" smh. Which Definition?? There's about 50 in the last 100 years and hundreds since Aristotle first coined the Term ca. 330 BC. And professor, "Species" (The Taxonomic Classification System, invented by a Creationist, btw) is a 'Man-Made' categorization system, i.e., it's an ARBITRARY CONVENTION; MEANING -- any extrapolations OUTSIDE OF IT ... are a Stone Cold Begging The Question Fallacy from the Black Lagoon!! 1. Equivocation Fallacy with the term "Theory". Just because one "Theory" is viable doesn't then Ipso Facto validate another. 2. "evolution", what's that?? (SEE a. b. c. d. and e. above) As Opposed to your "Spinning-Ball" Nonsense? You must not have been keeping up on your OWN thread where the "Spinning-Ball" Religion received about 30 Death Knells. Phlogiston and Alice in Wonderland have more veracity. regards
  8. Well that rules "Einstein's gr" out... "Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity (1915), the prototype of all modern gravitational theories. Its crucial ingredient, involving a colossal intellectual jump, is the concept of gravitation, not as a force, but as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time..." https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/l evel5/ESSAYS/Bekenstein/bekens tein.html So Netwonian 'gravity' Rules the Roost. BUT... That then opens up another 'Can of Worms', because the 'scientific community' follows Einstein 'gravity' not Newtonian... "...Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican. com/article/how-einstein-revea led-the-universe-s-strange-non locality/ You have, what they call in the industry, A .... "Paradox". regards
  9. I was responding to "KiwiChirstian's" Claim... KiwiChristian: "gravity pulling them downwards." The 'scientific community' doesn't follow Newtonian gravity... "...Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican. com/article/how-einstein-revea led-the-universe-s-strange-non locality/ Confirm Please (the lived for God Part)...? He was also a Free Mason --(SEE: Luciferian) and quite the alchemist. regards
  10. So let's think about something here, a Thought Experiment as it were... Using this "FAKE" Picture, The Famous "Blue Marble": "Conceptually', Let's say where at the same position looking from the vantage point 'portrayed' here. We have an UBER ZOOM Camera and decide to look at Hawaii (Roughly at 9 O'clock) Zooming in Closer and Closer from our Vantage Point. Eventually after numerous ZOOMS we MUST SEE What...? That's right: Ships, Planes, Buildings, Volcanoes, and Surfers --- riding the Pipeline... " SIDEWAYS " It's just that simple folks. ps. The folks on the Western Coast of South America MUST BE...Upside Down. Hope it helps
  11. More, Pillars... (1 Samuel 2:8) "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them." regards
  12. No, not at all. I'm questioning the Background Story and Mechanism. No. I've been pretty clear illustrating my position, the 'Opacity' might be on your end. regards
  13. If the Disclaimer was not with the Photo when it was released... it's FRAUD by Omission. AND as I have documented here, if "The Blue Marble" is not "ACTUAL"...i.e. A Fraud, then IPSO FACTO: Remember this (about 10 posts back to which you didn't answer to)... THEREFORE, all of GOES (The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite System) is Fake. Why?? ... "All images in the GOES archive are processed in McIDAS using GOES channel 1 visible and GOES channel 4 infrared data. The underlying colored land image is from the NASA Blue Marble Next Generation data set. When using this basemap for web or other publications, please provide the following credit line: The basemap was provided by the Earth Observatory Team - NASA (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov) ftp://ftp.nnvl.noaa.gov/SiteDescription.txt Real-Time U.S. Composite Satellite Image: Information "The composite images displayed on our Real-Time U.S. Composite Satellite pages are created using SSEC's McIDAS software and NOAA's GOES imager satellite imagery. A McIDAS based program created by Rick Kohrs at SSEC is used to merge GOES East and GOES West images, remap them and then remove the portions of the images that are the ground and replace those pixels with NASA's big blue marble basemap." http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/info.html Remember now?? Please Reconcile...? Please "CITE" what he says specifically...? Date Said...? Date Photo-Released to the public...? And I've already told you (which I shouldn't have had to), it's "Stamp on the Forehead"... The Blue Marble. Who's the Source for "The Blue Marble"?? Then Ipso Facto...it's the Same Source for Moon Shadow pic. Voila lol, Re-Stocking Fees have more legitimacy and 'coherency' than your offering here. ps. Anything on the SIDEWAYS problem?? regards
  14. Hmmm, I'm still trying to figure out what and who is being dishonest here... You have this, The Blue Marble... Then we have a "Close Up" of the Big Blue Marble off the coast of Mexico, with the "Cloned-Clouds"... Then we have (Our Subject) --- Solar Eclipse "Moon Shadow" (35 Times smaller than Itself )... I mean, anyone that can 'fog a mirror' can see a Problem in Shangri La here right? 1. How can you have the same Cloud Formations (And in very Close Proximity to each other And...in the same picture)? This is tantamount to having 6 People in your neighborhood with the same Finger Prints or finding 6 Snow Flakes in your backyard that are exactly the same. 2. The "Moon Shadow" Picture is Clearly the same Blue Marble Picture...because the Cloud Patterns are "THE SAME" in all 3 Pics. 3. How do you have the Same Picture with One Pic... "No Moon Shadow" and another..."With Moon Shadow" ?? I have about 30 more questions but for brevity, I'll stop here. Please can someone provide a "Coherent" explanation...? Who's being 'Dishonest' here and and HOW...? ps. Thought Observation: Let's say where at the same position looking at the Big Blue Marble (1st Pic) as is portrayed. We have a Great ZOOM Camera and decide to look at Hawaii (Roughly at 9 O'clock) Zooming in Closer and Closer from our Vantage Point. Eventually after numerous ZOOMS we should see What...? That's right: Ships, Planes, Buildings, Volcanoes, and Surfers --- riding the Pipeline... " SIDEWAYS " It's just that simple folks. Hope it helps regards
  15. What's the Form of a Pillar? Search "Pillar"... hit "Images" then scroll, Voila. Say that again please? regards