disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

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.  Atheism:

It's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb and "Scientifically Falsified" 'Religion: (Philosophical Naturalism/Realism, aka: atheism).

Religion: 'Belief without Evidence'.

Realism: "the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them." https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy

They have some *BIG* Problems. Namely, being in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to literally Thousands of Experiments ("Science") Without Exception!! ...

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness *[Philosophical Naturalism/Realism -- aka: atheism] turns out to be IN CONFLICT with QUANTUM MECHANICS and with facts established BY EXPERIMENT."

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

 

That is: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST: A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.

In other words, "Matter"/Light is derivative (The Consequent), Information/Knowledge is Primary (Necessary Antecedent). According to Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, described by Erwin Schrodinger, THEN... Validated Repeatedly via Thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... :

Independent of the KNOWLEDGE of the "Which-Path Information" -- or of it EXISTING... particles (Photons, All Elementary Particles, Atoms, Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of "A Wave Function" which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to knowledge but as a Wave of Potentialities. Wave "Functions" aren't "WAVES"(Classical Peak/Troughs) they are "Potentialities" i.e., Probabilities, they have no Mass/Energy. To put it another way, the "Wave" of a Wave Function is not a "Wave" in "Physical Space", it's merely an abstract mathematical construct.

Every double-slit experiment, 2) Every delayed choice experiment, 3) Every quantum eraser experiment, 4) Every experiment that combines any of 1,2,3 show exactly the same results - if the 'Which-Path' Information is known or can be known - No Interference (Matter Existing); Conversely, if the 'which-path' Information is not known and can't ever be known, there is Interference (No Matter). Experiments: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??

 

Let's make it quick... 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 atheism.

 

Crocheting has more "Science" than: evolution, atheism, an old earth... COMBINED !!!

 

It's not a 'theory'.

"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.

Young Earth (or Old Earth) is in the "What/Is" Genre.

Moreover, Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "Dating Methods" are outside the Purview of The Scientific Method, for goodness sakes.

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

1. Ya See, "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED -- "Manipulated/Varied by the scientist" so as to measure/validate the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"--- Predictions.
2. "Independent Variables" are sine qua non (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments!!  So can you please elaborate: 

How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) to use it to Extrapolate "Age"....of ANYTHING !!

It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands.  

 

Really??

a. Pull then post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis from your 'link' here then the Experiment that validates your claim...?

b. Highlight the Independent Variable...?

c. Post The Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?
 

regards

If you read the article you'd see the evidence they provide for an old earth. I don't have access to their testing instruments or their controlled study. Just because I don't have access to their information doesn't mean the data is incorrect. You make a lot of assumptions regarding this. 

[Guest]

Also, I never claimed to be a pseudo scientist nor did I ever say anywhere that quantum physics isn't true. Are you a scientist?

[Enoch2021]

12 hours ago, justme007 said:

About the age of the Earth:

The point I was trying to make is that whatever the age of the Earth is, we should never doubt The Bible! Therefore, either the verses that talk about days of creation are symbolic and the Earth is old and The Bible is true, or those verses are literal and the Earth is young and The Bible is true! in either case The Bible is true! we shouldn't let the doubt in our hearts ever!

The passages about the Days of Creation are Literal and the Bible is True.

 

Quote

the age of the Earth could be looked at as a puzzle to solve, a test of faith, but never as a reason to doubt! we should never doubt!

Some things to consider...

If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al *BEFORE* The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

This Scenario:

 

(Genesis 1:31) "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

(1 Corinthians 15:26) "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

You must show "DEATH" in Genesis Chapter 1-2 or... show how DEATH is *"Very Good"*.

 

(Genesis 3:17) "And unto Adam he said, BECAUSE thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

As in, Because you have done this... "NOW" the ground (EARTH --- not just Man) is CURSED; not before 'The Fall'.

(Genesis 3:18) "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

"NOW" Thorns and Thistles (There are Thorn and Thistle Fossils); not before 'The Fall'.

 

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

"NOW" Adam and Eve's fate will be DEATH, Adam and Eve were Immortal before the Fall (Tree of Life)...

 

(Genesis 3:22) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:"

(Genesis 3:23-24) "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. {24} So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the TREE OF LIFE."

"NOW" the Tree of Life is guarded; not before 'The Fall'.

 

2. If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al *BEFORE* The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

 

Then why the need for a... "KINSMEN REDEEMER", The Goel... (Jesus Christ)

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

(1 Corinthians 15:45) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the LAST ADAM was made a quickening spirit."

The Last Adam: Jesus Christ. The Whole of *The DOCTRINE OF SALVATION is "DIS-ANNULLED!"*

You make HIM a Liar and then have HIM Sacrificing Himself for HIS Kinsmen... "Trilobites !!"  Yes...it's really that bad!

GOEL:
He must be near of kin. (Leviticus 25:48; 25:25 Ruth 3:12-13)
He must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-“6). He must be free of any calamity or need of redemption himself.
He must be willing to redeem (Ruth 4:6ff)
Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid (Leviticus 25:27; Ruth 4:7-11).

 

regards

[Guest]

Also, I never said I believed in evolution theory. I believe in an old earth through intelligent design. 

[Enoch2021]

22 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

If you read the article you'd see the evidence they provide for an old earth.  

I did read it, there was no "Scientific Evidence".  That's why I posited the queries.

 

Quote

I don't have access to their testing instruments or their controlled study.

I didn't ask for them.

 

Quote

Just because I don't have access to their information doesn't mean the data is incorrect.

1.   Again, I didn't ask for that.

2.  The lack of "Information" surely doesn't make it true... to begin with.

 

Quote

You make a lot of assumptions regarding this.

For instance...?

 

Quote

Also, I never claimed to be a pseudo scientist nor did I ever say anywhere that quantum physics isn't true. Are you a scientist?

Well you said atheism makes more sense and it has "SCIENCE" on its side.

So to make the claim of "atheism having 'Science' on it's side", YOU MUST ("Necessary Antecedent") Ipso Facto HOLD the position that Quantum Mechanics is False by default... because Quantum Mechanics Experiments have "Scientifically Falsified" atheism.  Or Else... your Initial Claim is Nonsensical.

 

btw, atheism (nor "Science" ) is an ENTITY...they don't have "sides"; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

regards

[Guest]

I was being sarcastic. I was making a point that YEC is totally ludicrous and even atheism makes more sense than YEC. You were asking for me to provide information on the independent variable/null hypothesis in that article which I explained I don't have access to their study and just because I don't have their data doesn't invalidate their results. 

[hmbld]

53 minutes ago, Allroses48 said:

 I was making a point that YEC is totally ludicrous and even atheism makes more sense than YEC. 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

So, we have no death before Adam, and scripture provides Jesus genealogy back to Adam, how is YEC so ludicrous?

Also, as all modern "scientific" methods used to date the earth have been proven to be, at best, unreliable, how do you have more faith in fallen man's science, than the actual Word of God?  Science proves, then later this proven science is corrected on an ongoing basis to account for what it didn't take into account at the time.  The Word of God is eternal, never changing.   

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Allroses48 said:

I was being sarcastic.  

I wasn't.

 

Quote

I was making a point that YEC is totally ludicrous and even atheism makes more sense than YEC.

And I summarily PUMMELED your Arguments.

 

Quote

You were asking for me to provide information on the independent variable/null hypothesis in that article which I explained I don't have access to their study and just because I don't have their data doesn't invalidate their results.

Well since you (or they) can't SUPPORT their conclusions (Because it's a Fairytale as I explained at length, previously) their 'results' aren't Validated to begin with; i.e., they're "Baseless".

 

regards

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

I wasn't.

 

And I summarily PUMMELED your Arguments.

 

Well since you (or they) can't SUPPORT their conclusions (Because it's a Fairytale as I explained at length, previously) their 'results' aren't Validated to begin with; i.e., they're "Baseless".

 

regards

They're baseless according to you. My guess is they have supported their claims through their controlled study. I just don't have access to it. 

[Enoch2021]

8 hours ago, Allroses48 said:

They're baseless according to you.  

They're Baseless because you haven't provided "The Basis" for it.

 

Quote

My guess is they have supported their claims through their controlled study.

1.  We don't "Guess" in Science.

2.  Begging The Question (Fallacy): "controlled study".

 

Quote

I just don't have access to it.

Then your evidence is... "Baseless".

 

regards