6 Falsified 'Scientific' Theories / 6 Scientific Facts.

[RobbyPants]

Well put, Alphaparticle.

[alphaparticle]

thank. Yeah I was agreeing with you on that one robby, and expanding some.

[RobbyPants]

Ah, thanks. I never knew that!

[TsukinoRei]

Leaving the subject of evolution aside, because that horse corpse is being flogged on multiple other threads, what do all the other believers here think about the other 5 falsified theories vs scientific facts listed?  Are there any unwavering, scientifically knowledgeable 7 day creationists who would like to defend gravity or relativity?

[neil_]

Sculelos, first of all, nice to meet you. Especially since you apparently are, like me, a geocentrist.

 

Big Bang theory's most critical flaw is that the Universe is losing energy on a constant basis and has lost 11.32 x Times the physical charge of energy which equates to equilibrium loss of 1,738,329 times which means conservatively if we take the accepted age of the Universe as 13.77 Billion years and Adjust for the Equilibrium problem we go from 13.77 Billion Years the Universe at Most is only 7921 Years Old. Adjust for the math correction of Circle to Square and you end up with 6,217 Years further adjustment to reflect the 5% differential brings us to 5906 Years which is only startlingly only 5 years off of what the Biblical age of the Universe is. This is all Fact. 

 

I really don’t know where exactly did you get all that, but I’m very much interested. Looking forward. Thanks.

 

 

   The Other Major flaw inherent to the big bang is that has been shown repeatedly that there is an energy signature outside our Universe that is marking every aspect of our World/Universe which includes all planets, all moons and the cosmic web (AKA Everything present inside our Universe including the Universe itself)   

 

I’m very much interested in this too.

 

 

  Newtonian Gravity is simply an out-dated and wrong assumption from a person with no electrical knowledge and can be explained by 4 other forces.     

 

Firstly, it’s Newtonian gravitation, not gravity (to be accurate). Secondly, it’s indeed very easy to show how electromagnetism beats gravitation (or gravity) by many orders of magnitude. At this point, Newton & Einstein fans usually claim further radius for gravity. Actually, the entire universe (and then some!). Which, of course, they never prove, they only claim it. Meanwhile of course, the real universe proves gravity wrong (expansion!).

[neil_]

 This ignores the fact that evolution is a gradual process.    

 

I think I already asked this, and never obtained an answer. But here is me trying again: if you claim gradualism, why didn’t you help Gould find those “missing links”? The poor fellow died without finding a single one, and therefore had to come with an entirely different theory of evolution.

 

By the way, the “missing links” are called like that simply because they are… missing.

 

Moreover, I found extremely interesting what Meta_Agape said:

“However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.”

 

Well, let me inform you about a basic fact, well known by EVERYBODY: none of the fossils in the world (literally none of them) is of a non-complete (not completely functional) animal. If evolution is true, it should have been countless such fossils (many ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than of completely functional animals) – but there is NONE. So, still, evolutionist? (If so, why?)

 

 

 What about the observations of Copernicus and Galileo, which cannot be accounted for with a stationary Earth? 

 

Of course they can. Let me update your worldview with a many centuries old “news”… Tycho Brahe.

 

 

     Any individual creature is a complete, "finished" creature.  

 

Really? In other words, eyes for example didn’t evolve, they just appeared magically over night? How interesting. Thank you for throwing your evolution theory to the trash all by yourself…

 

 

   We do have useless growths on/in us. See our appendix, tail bone, and the remaining bits of a nictitating membrane in our eyes.   

 

All wrong evidence. But if you think otherwise, in regard to the tail bone I think I’ll offer you the same deal Hovind used to with the evolutionists he debated: bend over, buddy!

 

 

   There are existing organisms that show less evolved characteristics. Take the oft quoted "eye problem" from Darwin. There are animals with eye spots that only sense light and dark, there are animals that sense light and dark with direction, there are animals that see detail, but no color, animals that see detail and color, and animals that can see outside of the visible spectrum.    

 

And how about you believing in a colorful universe (like for example in all NASA and Hubble pictures) while instead all you should have seen are b&w pictures? Oh, and is that all they are doing to the actual pictures? Of course not. For example, you also apparently have never heard of the famous “mkobjects” command…

 

Dream manufacturing indeed: your dreams.

 

And no, your “explanation” doesn’t stand at all: if evolution would be true, we would see MANY animals (actually most of them – by many orders of magnitude) with non-functionality. For example, uncompleted (nonfunctional) limbs.

 

 

 

  The second law of thermodynamics in no way applies to evolution. This isn't a "ploy" to avoid dealing with it. The law quite explicitly states it applies to isolated systems.  

 

Your universe IS an isolated system, so what could you be possibly talking about? Wait, I forgot that you need multiple universes to make your laws work in this universe – or rather “explain” why they don’t work…

[neil_]

   Evolutionists believe that all we need is an open system with sufficient energy flowing into it for evolution to succeed.  If that were so, you could just stand right behind a jet engine as the aircraft prepares for takeoff, absorb that blast of energy, and evolve to a higher life form.    

 

Or stand quite close to an atomic bomb and absorb all its energy and then get to be the most evolved thing on earth (I think it was a rather recent movie about such a thing !).

 

Buddy, you’re not only smart, you’re very smart! Nice to meet you.

 

 

 In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel.  They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity.  These are people of great faith. 

 

I entirely agree. Atheists (and evolutionists in general) require immensely much more faith than us believers. Sadly for us…

[neil_]

   It's the most bonkers thing I've ever heard. We orbit the sun. Fact. End of.     

 

I really don’t think you actually understand what you believe in. Relativity, for instance. Let me put it as simple as possible: if changing frames wouldn’t work, then relativity is proved false. And that’s not all. It goes deeper. If you can’t figure out an explanation for things when changing frames, then relativity is thus proven wrong – by this fact alone. That’s what relativity really means (going all the way).

 

Let me give you a quick example: Earth’s bulge:

http://physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/einstein.cfm
"Frame dragging also answers the famous question: If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it instead, would its equator still bulge? According to general relativity and Gravity Probe B, the answer is YES. It doesn’t matter if you are spinning or if the universe is revolving around you. Both situations are equivalent."
 

And another, recent, example about relativity of motion:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf

 

Now, are you finally starting to understand what relativity means? And why don’t you google what Einstein himself said in regard to this topic.

 

Bottom line: if you claim relativity you can never prove Earth is moving. Really never. If you throw away relativity, then there’s only one cosmology left standing: geocentrism.

 

Now tell me, how do you like that?

[RobbyPants]

 

 This ignores the fact that evolution is a gradual process.    

 

I think I already asked this, and never obtained an answer. But here is me trying again: if you claim gradualism, why didn’t you help Gould find those “missing links”? The poor fellow died without finding a single one, and therefore had to come with an entirely different theory of evolution.

 

By the way, the “missing links” are called like that simply because they are… missing.

 

Moreover, I found extremely interesting what Meta_Agape said:

“However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.”

 

Well, let me inform you about a basic fact, well known by EVERYBODY: none of the fossils in the world (literally none of them) is of a non-complete (not completely functional) animal. If evolution is true, it should have been countless such fossils (many ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than of completely functional animals) – but there is NONE. So, still, evolutionist? (If so, why?)

 

 

 

     Any individual creature is a complete, "finished" creature.  

 

Really? In other words, eyes for example didn’t evolve, they just appeared magically over night? How interesting. Thank you for throwing your evolution theory to the trash all by yourself…

 

 

Actually, we do. Snakes have little nubs where there are malformed legs. There are plenty of birds with wings that cannot fly (note that the wings aren't useless, either! An organism can have a "half formed" organ and still gain use from it). I'm not going to say a T-rex's arms are useless, but they certainly could have been better. Eyes is another good one. There are creatures with simple eyes that can only sense light or dark, others that can sense light with direction, others that see images without color, others that see images with color, others that see images with very acute detail, and still more that see outside of the visible spectrum. A light sensing organ would still be very useful, even if it can't see full images.

 

All you're putting forth here is an argument from incredulity. You've basically proven that you can't believe in evolution because you can't personally imagine how it would work.

 

Also, as for "missing links", I posted twenty or more earlier in the page.

 

 

 

 

 What about the observations of Copernicus and Galileo, which cannot be accounted for with a stationary Earth? 

 

Of course they can. Let me update your worldview with a many centuries old “news”… Tycho Brahe.

 

 

Refuted by Galileo and his study of the phases of Venus.

 

 

   We do have useless growths on/in us. See our appendix, tail bone, and the remaining bits of a nictitating membrane in our eyes.   

 

All wrong evidence. But if you think otherwise, in regard to the tail bone I think I’ll offer you the same deal Hovind used to with the evolutionists he debated: bend over, buddy!

 

 

How is it wrong? I'll concede the appendix, since I've learned about it being used by the immune system, but what about the others? Also, what about the nubs on snakes where they don't have legs.

 

 

 

   There are existing organisms that show less evolved characteristics. Take the oft quoted "eye problem" from Darwin. There are animals with eye spots that only sense light and dark, there are animals that sense light and dark with direction, there are animals that see detail, but no color, animals that see detail and color, and animals that can see outside of the visible spectrum.    

 

And how about you believing in a colorful universe (like for example in all NASA and Hubble pictures) while instead all you should have seen are b&w pictures? Oh, and is that all they are doing to the actual pictures? Of course not. For example, you also apparently have never heard of the famous “mkobjects” command…

 

Dream manufacturing indeed: your dreams.

 

And no, your “explanation” doesn’t stand at all: if evolution would be true, we would see MANY animals (actually most of them – by many orders of magnitude) with non-functionality. For example, uncompleted (nonfunctional) limbs.

 

 

Nubs on a snake. Possibly the arms on a T-rex. Also, are you seriously telling me you can look at a skeleton and tell how useful the organisms eyes were? How do you know that a creature didn't have non-functional eyes.

 

Speaking of non-functional eyes, what about those blind fish in dark caves? They could see (if there were light), but they don't. Their eyes are evolving away slowly. Given enough time, they'll probably either vanish, or be able to detect something other than visible light.

 

 

 

  The second law of thermodynamics in no way applies to evolution. This isn't a "ploy" to avoid dealing with it. The law quite explicitly states it applies to isolated systems.  

 

Your universe IS an isolated system, so what could you be possibly talking about? Wait, I forgot that you need multiple universes to make your laws work in this universe – or rather “explain” why they don’t work…

 

 

You're missing the context. Yes, people live in the universe, but more importantly, we live on Earth. The earth is given energy by the sun. So, while the amount of entropy is increasing in the universe, it's actually not on earth, because we're getting energy from an outside source. This source, also happens to give us thousands of mutations each time we are exposed to it for any real length of time (luckily, our body is pretty good at fixing most of these). So, entropy is not increasing on earth, thus, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution on earth.

 

Mentioning the universe is isolated is true and also a non sequitur.

[neil_]

  Actually, we do. Snakes have little nubs where there are malformed legs. There are plenty of birds with wings that cannot fly (note that the wings aren't useless, either! An organism can have a "half formed" organ and still gain use from it). I'm not going to say a T-rex's arms are useless, but they certainly could have been better. Eyes is another good one.  

 

I don’t think we understand each other. Let me put it like this: show me (either in living realm, or in the fossils) a USELESS organ or member – that is, one that is (was) not used AS IT IS. Perhaps now you’ll understand.

 

Meanwhile, all you have are different kinds of eyes that are ALL USED (as they are). And different kinds of limbs that are ALL USED. Now you tell me: has the living animal survived THIS LONG (as a species, or rather kind) with THOSE eyes? And THOSE limbs? I only have to look at them to answer “yes”. And I wonder how you could possibly answer “no”…

 

 

  All you're putting forth here is an argument from incredulity. You've basically proven that you can't believe in evolution because you can't personally imagine how it would work.  

 

Incredulity doesn’t necessarily have to do with personal imagination of how things work – what could you be possibly talking about? Moreover, neither does credulity.

 

And thank you for using more and more the expression “believe in evolution” – that’s all that evolution is, really…

 

 

  Refuted by Galileo and his study of the phases of Venus.  

 

I think I’ll grow old endlessly repeating the very same thing: Tycho, buddy. Tycho…

 

 

   what about the nubs on snakes where they don't have legs. 

 

You mean those things serving when mating?

 

 

  Also, are you seriously telling me you can look at a skeleton and tell how useful the organisms eyes were?  

 

Only if you are doing the opposite: telling how useless they are…

 

 

  How do you know that a creature didn't have non-functional eyes. 

 

How do you know the opposite?

 

 

 Speaking of non-functional eyes, what about those blind fish in dark caves? They could see (if there were light), but they don't. Their eyes are evolving away slowly.  

 

Their eyes are DEVOLVING slowly. The entire universe is decaying, buddy.

 

Funny, even you say that, here:

“Given enough time, they'll probably either vanish, or be able to detect something other than visible light.”

 

 

  You're missing the context. Yes, people live in the universe, but more importantly, we live on Earth. […]  So, entropy is not increasing on earth, thus, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution on earth.

 

The context was the universe, not Earth…

 

 

 Mentioning the universe is isolated is true and also a non sequitur. 

 

Thank you for taking such a drastic departure from mainstream. Because they have to postulate other universes, and on multiple accounts: to explain chances for life, to explain why gravity is so weak (the weakest of them all, by many orders of magnitude), and many other things.