Jump to content

Enoch2021

Royal Member
  • Content Count

    3,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,120 Excellent

7 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

2,874 profile views
  1. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    First you have to Reckon that there's "A CREATOR" ... Have I established that with: 1. Scientific Law (DNA/Information) 2. Quantum Mechanics 3. Laws of Thermodynamics 4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity ???? After we hammer these ^^^^^ out, then we can get to your additional questions. regards
  2. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    Say What? It's really quite simple: The CREATOR -- Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent. Without HIM, nothing would Exist. Speak for yourself. "WE" are pretty confident; as in 100% Certainty (Of which, you have been given more than 10 Times personally)... 1. Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !! SUPPORT: 1. Library of Congress. 2. ALL Books. 3. ALL Newspapers. 4. ALL Languages. 5. ALL Computer Software. 6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!! Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION). If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed... "DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes." Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410 "The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES." Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000 I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed. Sooo... Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation) Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. So essentially, you MUST SHOW: Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...? We'll wait. If not: Therefore: 'A CREATOR'. 2. Quantum Mechanics: a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior. b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter). Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference '). c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like?? 1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. "The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ [THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] 2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates: a. Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse. b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse. c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics. Ergo: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent). Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent). To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize... Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012) https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model." https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is... Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent. 4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why? Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position. Therefore: 'A CREATOR'. 3. Laws of Thermodynamics: 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death. If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End — the 'Heat Death’(The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a BEGINNING (CREATION)-- and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck. Since the First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy. AND... Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT), AND... Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning... AND... Since "Matter" (Nature) CAN'T Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)... Therefore: 'A CREATOR'. 4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity: Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. Example: Functional Interlinked Systems. There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)." Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al. So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct. FSC = Intelligent Design Construct. "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973) "The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors". H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390. No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC). Examples FSC: Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... Without it, you die. Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die. They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions. If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically... ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) Therefore: 'A CREATOR'. I have roughly 30 more But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above. regards
  3. Yes let's Ignore him, Mainly Due To: Sojourner 414 Pummeling Factually Incorrect: According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. Watch... How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something?? Distance = Rate x Time, right?? So... R = D/T It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem). According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!! What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ?? That's Right Folks... The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!! So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy. Einstein made the very same conclusions... “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23. Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23. Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon. More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) -- have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.” Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68. Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide.... *The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! 1. Factually Incorrect: Begging The Question Fallacy (SEE: "Speed of Light" above). 2. Even granting... for the sake of argument, your Erroneous Speed of Light, you MUST VALIDATE the Distance to the Sun. Go ahead...? (Please Rigorously Define ALL Terms) Hogwash!! Falsified Above. Hogwash!! Falsified Above. Who Cares, astronomy isn't "Science" !! ... 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". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "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 Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Simply put: FAIRYTALE. (SEE: Falsification Above) Simply put: FAIRYTALE. Black Holes don't EXIST!! 1. Scientifically Validate Black Holes... 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...? 2. Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations... 'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time." Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55 "It contains no matter" oh my, come again? "and exists forever"... in the Imagination. Translation: Fairytale Can you show us one? If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses? I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist ! Yes and Orangutans are Facultative Anaerobe Woodpeckers. Listen to this Contradictory Nonsense folks... LOL. So the Black Hole () takes in gas and releases the energy as EMR (Light); BUT... Light cannot escape Black Holes !!! But Alas, Just when we thought the astrophysicists couldn't be any Dumber, they go ahead and do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM THEMSELVES... So the escaping energy (From INSIDE the Black Hole) is generated OUTSIDE the Black Hole, eh? Makes Perfect Sense! Stay Tuned Next Week, The World Premier: Reconciling Married Bachelors. ps. gravitational stresses ?? Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ?? a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? i.e., ... 1. What Phenomenon was Observed...? 2. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? 3. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? 4. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? ps2: (Minor Detail) Black Hole Universes and Big Bang Universes (4 Different Types LOL) are Mutually Exclusive: Black Holes: No k-curvature. Big Bangs: k-curvature. Black Holes: Spatially Infinite. Big Bangs: Spatially Finite (k=1), or Infinite (k=-1, or k=0). Black Holes: Eternal (No Age). Big Bangs: 13.8 Billion Years Old (this week ). Black Holes: Not Expanding. Big Bangs: Expanding. Black Holes: Asymptotically Flat. Big Bangs: Not Asymptotically Anything. Black Holes: Contains Only 1 Mass. Big Bangs: Contains Many Masses. Please Explain Star Formation in the Context of: the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass...? pssst ... STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt: "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." Sun And Stars, p.111 It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" --because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and Bludgeons Them Senseless!! Scientifically, for the postulate to be true: is logically tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent athlete's foot. "The process by which an interstellar cloud is concentrated until it is held together gravitationally to become a protostar is not known. In quantitative work, it has simply been assumed that the number of atoms per cm3 has somehow increased about a thousand-fold over that in a dense nebula. The two principal factors inhibiting the formation of a protostar are that the gas has a tendency to disperse [ ERRR...The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) !!! ] before the density becomes high enough for self-gravitation [ Which 'gravity' einSHtienian or newtonian, love??] to be effective, and that any initial angular momentum would cause excessively rapid rotation as the material contracts. Some mechanism [ That DIRECTLY VIOLATES 2LOT and Boyle's Gas Law!!! ] must therefore be provided for gathering the material into a sufficiently small volume that self-gravitation [ that doesn't exist ] may become effective, and... the angular momentum must in some way be removed." Novotny, E: Introduction to Stellar Atmospheres and Interiors (1973), Oxford University Press, pp. 279-280. "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect." Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory. Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002 "There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains in space gas clouds can condense." Hoyle, F., Wickramasinghe, C: "Where Microbes Boldly Went," in New Scientist (1981), pp. 412-413. Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says: “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998. Yea, THE TRUTH is Abraham --- WILLFUL IGNORANCE (!!), you don't understand it ...because it's Directly Violates The Laws of Quantum Mechanics, Boyle's Gas Law, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics !!!! So you've chosen to 'Whistle past the Graveyard' and float a feigned Argument to Ignorance (Fallacy) --- with an 'Implied' Argument to the Future (Fallacy), wrapped around its incoherent ankles to keep your Mind Numbing "Just So" Story Fairytales ALIVE !!! And the 64,000 Dollar Question: Are Stars, SUNS ?? If so, Book/Chapter/Verse Please...? We won't know HOW it was made... in this life, but we know WHO made it. regards
  4. What on Earth?? For the life of me, I can't understand why you're still posting. You think you can recover and/or 'Whistle Past the Graveyard' by your Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn in your last post? If anyone (that can 'fog a mirror') takes just a cursory look at your Trainwreck, they'll need to be Resuscitated from Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher Syndrome. I mean, this is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was Video-Taped LIVE Clubbing Baby Seals with a Nail-Spiked 44" Louisville Slugger !!! This is tantamount to General Custer exclaiming to Sitting Bull: "Do you accept my challenge?" on Jun 27, 1876. Read this Carefully: IT'S O V E R !! mmm K? My Word
  5. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    Well then, what's My Favorite Color ...?? ps. Observations aren't "METHODS", it's just "Looking". regards
  6. Enoch2021

    North Star Never Moves.

    Yes Really, even God makes reference to the "Pillars"... (Job 9:6) "Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble." (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." Is it still getting better? regards
  7. Enoch2021

    North Star Never Moves.

    The Flat Earth Society is a Tear Jerk'n Belly Laugher "Dis-Information" Site. If you clumsily attempt to associate the "Flat Earth" or "Flat Earthers" with them by nothing more than your Ipse Dixit Pigeon Hole, then say hello to... 1. Straw Man Fallacy. 2. Stereotype Fallacy. regards
  8. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    Coming from someone who 'believes' (Short List): a. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blue-Prints. b. Something can come from Nothing, "Naturally". c. Giraffes come from Bacteria...if given enough time. d. Can't even explain "THE" in word or thought without contradicting your Fairytale Scientifically Falsified 'Religion' ... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism aka: atheism. Perhaps "EXTREME CAUTION" is advised in assessing the "Real Getting" of others until you deal with those "Gems". regards
  9. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    smh sir. Have somebody else explain it to you. Now, (For about the 5th Time): 'evolution' ?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 3. These questions ^^^^^^^^ can not/will not EVER be answered folks because "evolution" DOESN'T and NEVER EXISTED. It's a Joke!! In fact, that's insulting to Actual Jokes...at least Jokes have some substance. AND... Well the ONLY other position is "Nature DID IT" . Please post your defense of that Position, start here: 1. The Existence of MATTER...? Essentially, regale us with how Matter Pre-Existed before it's Existence then Poofed itself into Existence (before that... Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence). 2. The Existence of Life...? (Please explain the existence of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in your defense, Thanks!) ?????? regards
  10. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    1. Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy. 2. Please can you elucidate 'The Method' you used to arrive at your Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy here...? Was it Crystal Ball, Dowsing Rods, Tea Leaves, Frogs Legs? Other?? I know, let's TEST your Blind Conjecture "Divining" Acumen... What's my Favorite Color? regards
  11. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    Unbelievable. Factually Incorrect. Errr...I'm still a part of the "Mainly". Yes, that's a Stereotype Fallacy; you employed it earlier. Appeal to Intent/Motive Fallacy. Well, I'm not here to Convince You of anything; That mission came to an abrupt end after the 3-5th time we talked. Ever since that point, the Mission changed to Reproving..."Exposing" you and Destroying your Arguments: (Ephesians 5:11) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (2 Cor 10:5) We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. Follow? Nothing Personal. Now do you have any SUPPORT for that which you are DIVERTING From (AGAIN)... 'evolution' ?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 3. These questions ^^^^^^^^ can not/will not EVER be answered folks because "evolution" DOESN'T and NEVER EXISTED. It's a Joke!! In fact, that's insulting to Actual Jokes...at least Jokes have some substance. AND... Well the ONLY other position is "Nature DID IT" . Please post your defense of that Position, start here: 1. The Existence of MATTER...? Essentially, regale us with how Matter Pre-Existed before it's Existence then Poofed itself into Existence (before that... Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence). 2. The Existence of Life...? (Please explain the existence of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in your defense, Thanks!) ?????? regards
  12. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    This is tantamount to Pol Pot charging the Dalai Lama with Genocide. 1. Stereotype Fallacy. 2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. And...? Actually, I didn't. It's Irrelevant anyway. I'm still a Young Earth Creationist...the "Mainly" still refers to me and my sort. ps. And how do you know how/what I read, do you have Special evo "Divining" Mind Powers? Factually Incorrect, you're quite confused. I charged you with a Straw Man Fallacy (which it is), it's also... 1. Stereotype Fallacy. AND... 2. Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. Actually, you should receive the Award: Red Herring Fallacy "WHOLESALE DODGE" Contrived Theatrics Emmy. (It's been running daily since 1859). To divert attention away from the Elephant in the Room... Remember ... 'evolution' ?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 3. These questions ^^^^^^^^ can not/will not EVER be answered folks because "evolution" DOESN'T and NEVER EXISTED. It's a Joke!! In fact, that's insulting to Actual Jokes...at least Jokes have some substance. Can you answer any of the SIMPLE Questions above?? OR... You gonna charge me with the Kennedy Assassination next? smh
  13. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    This has been explained to you so many times it's Exponential Magnitudes Beyond Woefully Pathetic. So for everyone else... Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity: Hallmarks Reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity. Example: Functional Interlinked Systems. There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)." Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado. Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al. So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct. FSC = Intelligent Design Construct. "In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity". Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973) "The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors". H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390. No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC). Examples FSC: Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption... Without it, you die. Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die. They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions. If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick. btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically... ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Examples of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC) Well perhaps: uncover your eyes, remove the fingers from your ears, and take a respite from saying "La La La" over and over again and look up. Well my when my Jeep blows a tranny do we chalk that up to: Wind, Waves, Erosion, Laws of Motion, constructing it? regards
  14. Enoch2021

    Body invaders

    What on Earth?? Well the ONLY other position is "Nature DID IT" . Please post your defense of that Position, start here: 1. The Existence of MATTER...? Essentially, regale us with how Matter Pre-Existed before it's Existence then Poofed itself into Existence (before that... Poofed itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence). 2. The Existence of Life...? (Please explain the existence of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity in your defense, Thanks!) 1. Please don't conjure Straw Man Fallacies for my position. I'm a Young Earth Creationist and wouldn't make that trainwreck claim. ps. What does this have to do with "Young vs Old Earth" to begin with?? smh 2. 'evolution' ?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a *REAL* Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 3. These questions ^^^^^^^^ can not/will not EVER be answered folks because "evolution" DOESN'T and NEVER EXISTED. It's a Joke!! In fact, that's insulting to Actual Jokes...at least Jokes have some substance. regards
  15. Define "arbitrary"...? What was my "arbitrary" definition, SPECIFICALLY...? 1. You post a 'wiki' definition?? Are you a 'wiki'/google scientist?? 2. Why is Citing 'wiki' tantamount to Citing from Public Blogs? 1. So you admit to posting an "Arbitrary" definition. smh 2. Moreover, do arbitrary definitions of "Science" exist?? And if they did, wouldn't that make "Science"... arbitrary, professor?? Well "Entities" have dimensions (Length/Width/Height) and in today's society have: Addresses, Email's, and Ph #'s. So, Please post the (Length/Width/Height) and Address, Email, and Ph# of your "Enterprise" (SCIENCE)...? (You'd have better chances Resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!) 1. "Coasting" doesn't quite capture what you're attempting here. 2. Well since they SAY it (Ipse Dixit Fallacy); Therefore: it must be TRUE. Right? 3. astronomy isn't Science: 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". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "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 Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania. 1. Clearly you don't know what a Straw Man 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/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Not noting the "alleged" rationale behind your "Whirling Spinning Ball"... isn't a Straw Man Fallacy. 2. Show how the "Laws of Motion" Validate your "Whirling Spinning Ball" Religion...? 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...? 3. "forces of gravitation"?? Which 'gravity'... Einsteinian or Newtonian ?? a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? (i.e., Format it with a.b.c.d. above. Thanks!) 1. You have NO CLUE what a Scientific Theory is. Watch, Define a Scientific Theory...? 2. I merely need to state your "POSITION" (Whirling 'Spinning Ball' Religion) it is "YOUR" job to provide SUPPORTING Evidence for "YOUR" Position, not me. smh SO... 3. Post EACH Scientific Theory SUPPORTING "your" Whirling Spinning-Ball Religion...? For EACH Scientific Theory... a. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? b. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? c. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 4. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science... Please show "models" in The Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!* REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments -- ( Hypothesis TESTS ). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! Yes, because you'd get your Hat Handed to You. Flat Earth isn't a "Model" (aka: Pseudo-Science). Oh I can't wait. It's not "MY" Assertion , Science is it's Method... "Science is nothing more than a METHOD OF INQUIRY." Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005) 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 Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !! Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5. "The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. “EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983 "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 "The Scientific Method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Scientific Evidence: The TESTING of a hypothesis or theory that is objective and in a controlled environment. http://thelawdictionary.org/scientific-evidence/ Get the Picture?? LOL, Thanks Again!!! ... 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". EXPERIMENT: from Penn State University: "There should be three categories of variables in EVERY EXPERIMENT: Dependent, Independent, and Controlled." http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Well then, what are: "Independent Variables" ... "In an EXPERIMENT, the "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" is the variable that is VARIED OR MANIPULATED by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured. An "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed EFFECT. The IV is the antecedent, whereas the DV is the consequent." http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm Independent Variable -- is what is VARIED during the Experiment; it is what the investigator thinks will affect the dependent variable." https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Independent (MANIPULATED) Variable - variable CHANGED BY THE SCIENTIST; what the investigator is TESTING. http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf "The two main variables in an EXPERIMENT are the "INDEPENDENT" and dependent variable. An INDEPENDENT is the variable that is CHANGED or controlled in a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT to test the effects on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. https://www.thoughtco.com/i-ndpendent-and-dependent-variables-differences-606115 An INDEPENDENT VARIABLE is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED during an EXPERIMENT to affect change in the dependent variable. National Science Teachers Association https://www.ecybermission.com/files/helpdocs/Constructing a Hypothesis.pdf In Summary... You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science. It'd be easier demonstrating an Orangutan as a Facultative Anaerobe Woodpecker. Thanks for the Laughs
×