6 days Creation

[Enoch2021]

10 hours ago, da_man1974 said:

Do anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Yes.

Question: Is English your first language?

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Ok, so let's just say it diverged more than expected, how is that evidence that it didn't occur? Tomkins' own research shows sequence similarities between 45% and 50% to the highly repeated telomere sequence, which is quite high, as far as DNA sequence comparisons go.

Human Chromosome 2 Fusion??  

I PUMMEL this Nonsense (along with A Metric Ton of other Nonsense) personally, (You Tube): Professor PZ Myers and "Semi"-- Atheist Round Table DEBUNKED (Science vs Scientism series Ep. 14).

 

Quote

I forgot to mention this earlier about radiometric dating. 

Mentioning "radiometric dating" (or any "Dating Method" for that matter), after I PUMMELED it into the Incoherent Oblivion(!!!) in this thread (and 2349 times throughout this forum) is some serious "Whistl'n Past The Graveyard" -- Dunning-Kruger Effect.  

It's tantamount to justifying the Gulf War because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", TODAY!  

 

regards

[da_man1974]

28 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes.

Question: Is English your first language?

 

regards

Yes. 

[Enoch2021]

6 hours ago, Kevinb said:

As I said could we explore the design alternative?

So Non-Design Design? 

 

Quote

Can you...“Demonstrate design. How do you prove a being did it?

Yep, Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:

Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, Interlinked Systems, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED !!! ; without deterministic law like necessity. 

 

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 (Analogy).  (Practical Example)...Aftermath of a Tornado. 

  
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu (Analogy): (Practical Examples)...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.

 

 

Roger Sperry PhD, Neurobiologist (Nobel Prize)...

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink." 

https://themuslimtimes.info/2013/03/20/quote-of-the-day-by-roger-sperry/

 

 

In other words, what Dr. Sperry is saying is that: if you walk by a magnetic board and see the message: "Hey Joe, can you please clean up and ensure all the tools are put away, --- Gone Fishing, see you when I get back"...

 

That the 'force' between the Letters and the Board are not responsible for the construction. sequence/arrangement of the letters... and THE MESSAGE THEREOF !!! 

 

According to an atheistic World-View, they MUST believe that the 'force' is responsible !!! 

 

 

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the *APPEARANCE* of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.” 
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)

 

Michael Polanyi, chairman of Physical Chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK)...
‘As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content."

 

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 still having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', 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 Your Shot Group, right quick.

 

Quote

How do you falsify a designer designing?

1.  Show Life from Non-Life...?

2.  Show Something coming from Nothing...?

 

Quote

I'd love to know if there are better arguments as all I have seen is things like irreducible complexity..examples put forward nailed nicely at dover

Ha ha.  I'd wager you couldn't even DEFINE "Irreducible Complexity".

Please see My FULL Exposition on Irreducible Complexity and PUMMELING the Kangaroo Court (Dover Trial --smh), here (You Tube): Science vs Scientism Ep. 10 - Evolution and Irreducible Complexity.

Just a taste...

This is quite elementary to understand; Let's use a Bicycle... 

 

You have the frame, handle bars, handle grips, seat, mirror, 2 wheels, chain, peddles, flag. What Irreducible Complexity is speaking to is there are certain parts of the system that must be present/complete and "functioning" to make a Bicycle a "Functioning" Bicycle. With our parts above, which are absolutely necessary? These are absolutely necessary; 

Frame, Handle Bars, both Wheels, Chain, Peddles.  Ergo...the system is Irreducibly Complex.

For our example, lets take a wheel away... Does the Bike still Function? If that wheel is used as a "Functioning" Roulette Wheel for ground squirrels or the spokes repatriated and used for Shis Kababs is the Bicycle still Kaput? 
Does the mere fact that the parts of the wheel are now functioning for another purpose Preclude the Fact that the Bike is currently a Football Bat?

 

Will the Frame, Handle Bars, Chain et al get together and reconstruct the missing wheel? Do Stupid Atoms and Molecules " Inanimate Matter " have Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence (Engineering Capabilities) ? 

Welcome to Irreducible Complexity it's as right as rain. 

And btw, the "debunking" blusters from the peanut gallery ALL (Kenneth Miller lol) IN TOTO argue The Stamp On The Forehead conclusion...

...that the existence of the "Functioning" Roulette Wheel and Shis Kabobs dis-annuls the Irreducible Complexity of the Bike !!!  

 

Please Reconcile this "Irreducibly Complex" System...

(Abbreviated version minus Translation) ....To make ONE "Functional Protein": DNA (Blue-Print/ Instructions /SOFTWARE) needs to be Unzipped, Read and Copied (Transcription). 

 

RNA Polymerase (RNAP -- "Functional Proteins" + RNA) A mind boggling Complex Molecular Rotary Motor, Tape Reader, and Copy Machine (not including the roughly 70 other Co-Regulators  that have to work BEFORE and in Concert with RNAP that... if not ALL THERE and working properly, gives you BUPKIS !!); that means the Entire Process is Irreducibly Complex!!

If RNAP is missing or 1 of the 70 Co-Regulators ("Functional Proteins").... do you get 1/70 of a "Functional Protein" or No "Functional Protein"? Ya get ZERO!!  The "process" is... 

 

Irreducibly Complex! 

 

** An aside; how are you getting the first "Functional Proteins" when you need "Functional Proteins" (CODED Specifically for on DNA), to make "Functional Proteins"?

Is that like the Space Shuttle giving birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant? 


After you reconcile this, I have roughly A THOUSAND MORE ---(DNA: Transcription, Translation, Replication; Glycolysis, Krebs Cycle/Electron Transport Chain, Gluconeogenesis...ect ect ) ALL, IN TOTO are...

 

 

Irreducibly Complex !!!

  

Quote

Essentially all those involved on the evolution side were able to demonstrate the science of evolution..How to correctly interpret the evidence...how the evidence was found. How it follows the scientific method..how it makes prediction..how it's falsifiable...

Ha.  I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

 

Thanks Again!!

[Zoltan777]

15 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Again, I don't "believe" it's Flat, I "Know" it's: Flat, Non-Spinning, and Domed.

 

regards

Honestly, how can you prove this one?

If it's flat, how thick then?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Zoltan777

[Enoch2021]

29 minutes ago, Zoltan777 said:

Honestly, how can you prove this one?

Didn't I already do that, in this very thread?  Right here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2640394

 

Flat: 

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Please reconcile on a Sphere...?

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf

 

Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ).

The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.

Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

 

3. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? 

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

Quote

If it's flat, how thick then?

I have no idea.

 

regards

 

[Kevinb]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

“To clarify you admit it's an unframed assertion?”

 

I presented an alternate explanation of the same presented facts; namely, that if a trait is functional (like fins in dolphins), its existence can be just as readily be interpreted to be a result of design, as it can a result of evolution. The factor determining which conclusion you prefer is the presupposed paradigm through which you consider the evidence. It doesn’t just work one way.

You are still asserting it though. What you're saying is it's designed..intelligently I presume...designed because it looks designed..presumably like a car for example? This can be considered an equivocation fallacy...an argument from ignorance or incredulity...pick one or all. Please demonstrate a supernatural being did it breaking the laws of physics and biology. I'm glad you admit later you can't as it's a position of faith and the supernatural can not be investigated. 

 

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Can you demonstrate Common Ancestry, or Big Bang

I've been giving evidence of evolution but you reject it as it contradicts your faith. To which can't be demonstrated as supernatural did it. 

Anyway.. okay let's try some big bang stuff. 

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence: 
 

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.
 

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past. 
 

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K. 
 

The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount. 
 

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so. 
 

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them. 
 

Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet. 

There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it. For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997). It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement.

So otherwise please demonstrate a supernatural being poofed the universe to how we see it? I know you can't demonstrate the supernatural which you've admitted...i can't throw out this big bang stuff for something that can t be demonstrated. I'd be irrational to do this surely. The case I'm learning further the alternative is just to attempt to pick holes in the consensus scientific but not actually demonstrate God claims. Even if x theory is incomplete or has issues it doesn't default the alternative is true... still gotta demonstrate that...especially when we get into invoking supernatural magical things... that defy the laws of nature... that's a massive claim.. the evidence for me then has gotta be equally impressive.

Re dover. If you search.... the collapse of intelligent design- ken Miller lecture. You'll find it. I do recommend you watch out of interest...many points and motivations come to light. I didn't know this stuff was going on in the US till recently.. was shocked to see. 

Culturally it's so different and more religious there than the UK. Did I see you were Australian? 

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

but doesn’t actually speak to the truth or untruth of Gods existence.

I've been arguing for the untruth but I've seen little for the truth in what you said. What's the best argument for the truth?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Kevinb

[Enoch2021]

6 hours ago, Kevinb said:

What other better modelling do we have?

For the 1135 Time (!!), '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 UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! 

 

Quote

This is not saying 100% certainty even if we're talking gravity or germ theory of disease which we agree on.

'gravity' is a Full On Fairytale, Married Bachelors are more tenable.  And, to have some fun...

1.  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'...?

2.  Please Explain, in the context of 'gravity', why it has NO EFFECT on: Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Methane, HOT AIR, Water Vapor ect ect...?

 

Quote

However I don't need to add supernatural claims in my position.  Else demonstrate supernatural claims demonstrably.

1.  You have no 'Coherent' Position.

2. To Easy: 

Prefix "Super": over and above. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/super

Nature -- the physical world and everything in it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature

Natural = Physical Material World.

Supernatural = above/beyond the Material Physical World or Universe.

Therefore it logically follows, that the "Supernatural" is Immaterial ... completely lacking Matter/Energy, Right ?? ...

Well, Do these Exist... TRUTH, Logic, INFORMATION, Time, THOUGHTS, Math ...?  These are... Immaterial/ "Supernatural" by definition. Unless you can post, the: Chemical Formula/Structure, Charge, Mass, Momentum, Spin, OR... Kcals/Joules/meV FOR EACH of the above...?

If not; well...there ya go: "DEMONSTRABLY". 

 

Quote

That's an addition by faith...belief without evidence.

That's Blind "Faith".  You're feebly attempting to Equivocate "Blind" Faith and "Biblical" Faith... as explained and illustrated to you personally quite a number of times.  Look Up: 'Whistl'n Past The Graveyard'.

 

Quote

This is the distinction when you say they both need faith.

 And Again...

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

Max Planck (Nobel Prize Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING?; translated by James Vincent Murphy (1932), p. 214

 

So either you're Right and Max Planck is wrong and/or you're Equivocating (Fallacy) with the word " FAITH ".

 

Guess where My Bet's going... "ALL IN !!" ??

 

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

31 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

 is it's designed..intelligently I presume...designed because it looks designed..presumably like a car for example? This can be considered an equivocation fallacy...an argument from ignorance or incredulity...pick one or all.

Can you show Unintelligent Design?   The terms (Intelligent and Design) are Mutually Inclusive, by definitions.  smh

After that, can you reconcile Married Bachelors for us...?

 

Quote

Please demonstrate a supernatural being did it breaking the laws of physics and biology.

I already did, See: Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity.  (Post just above)

"You" show how NATURE did it without breaking the Laws of Physics!!!  What are the "Laws of Biology", per adventure...?

 

Quote

I'm glad you admit later you can't as it's a position of faith and the supernatural can not be investigated. 

I already PUMMELED your feeble appeal to "Supernatural". (SEE: Post just above).

 

Quote

I've been giving evidence of evolution 

You (or anyone else) can't even DEFINE IT (!!) , let alone present evidence for it.   It's tantamount to providing evidence for Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes.

 

Quote

Anyway.. okay let's try some big bang stuff. 

Please...? One of my favorites 

 

Quote

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

Really?? Try this first...

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...?

Ya see this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^, this is "SCIENCE"!!!

 

Quote

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

I've PUMMELED Einstein's Mytho-matheMagical Trainwrecks on this forum so many times, I lost count.

SEE: Quantum Mechanics "Non-Locality" and Common Sense. 
 

Quote

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law).

I PUMMEL Hubble's Law -- Red Shift and the CMB here, (You Tube): Science vs. Scientism Episode 6 - Speed of Light and the CMB. 
 

Quote

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

Ha ha.

1.  'models' again. 

2. Please Define:

a. "Scientific Prediction"...?

b. "POST"- diction...?

c. Jeanne Dixon/Jimmy The Greek/Carnival Tent "Prediction"...?

Now Juxtapose the Characteristics of each and place Your "big bang prediction" trainwreck in the appropriate category...?

3.   "The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph Alpher in 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George Gamow."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

 

"The first confirmation of the microwave cosmic background that we knew of, however, came from a totally different, indirect measurement.  This measurement had, in fact, been made thirty years earlier by Adams and Dunhan 16-21. Adams and Dunhan had discovered several faint optical interstellar absorption lines which were later identified with the molecules CH, CH+, and CN. In the case of CN, in addition to the ground state, absorption was seen from the first rotationally excited state. McKellar 22 using Adams’ data on the populations of these two states calculated that the excitation temperature of CN was 2.3 K."

THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION: Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1978; ROBERT W. WILSON, Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N.J. U.S.A.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe l_prizes/physics/laureates/ 1978/wilson-lecture.pdf

 

He's talking about these...

Starting in 1937, Adams and Dunham had found some absorption lines, which were later identified with interstellar molecules CH, CH+ and CN.
Dunham, T., Jr. and Adams, W.S., Publ. Am. Astron. Soc. 9:5, 1937

and this...

'So, in 1940/1, the Canadian astrophysicist and spectroscopist Andrew McKellar (1910–1960) could analyze the data. From the observed ratios of the populations of these energy states, he calculated that the CN molecules were in thermal equilibrium with a temperature of about 2.3K.'
McKellar, A., Proc. Ast. Soc. Pac. 52:187, 1940; Publ. Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria B.C. 7(15):251, 1941

So we already have Empirical Measurements showing up in the literature well before 1948.  Making the PRE-diction a "POST-DICTION".

 

Moreover, 

"At that time some radio astronomers thought that the microwave absorption of the earth’s atmosphere was about twice the value we were using - in other words the “sky temperature” of Figs. 6 and 8 was about 5 K instead of 2.5 K. We knew from our measurement of sky temperature such as shown in Fig. 7 that this could not be the case."

THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION: Nobel Lecture, 8 December, 1978; ROBERT W. WILSON, Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, N.J. U.S.A.

Really, how'd they know that.....? At 5 K, eh?  That's a FULL UNIVERSE worth of Error in the Fairytale POST-DICTION!!!   This is Tantamount to PREDICTING the Seattle Seahawks will score between 0 and 1000 points in their next game and claiming CONFIRMATION of the Prediction when they score 28 !!

 

Let's end this Fairytale Charade....  

“History also shows that some Big Bang cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR [microwave background radiation] temperature have been ‘adjusted’ after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.”

Mitchel, William; BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE; Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 370-379, June 1997. http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm 

 

KaBooM !!
 

Quote

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so. 

'models' and "POST-DICTIONS" again.   You need to renew your subscription to evolutionists-r-us "PARROTING" division.

Ahh, Nine Billion Years of MISSING METAL in a trillion stars (rotflol)...

"We're not saying there's a complete breakdown in the theory of galaxy evolution," says lead author and Indiana University astronomer John Salzer, "but that these objects do run counter to the standard model."
Salzer, J (as Quoted In); Clara Moskowitz; Newfound Spiral Galaxies Oddly Young; Space; 28 April 2009. Parent Paper....
Salzer, J et al; A POPULATION OF METAL-POOR GALAXIES WITH ~L* LUMINOSITIES AT INTERMEDIATE REDSHIFTS; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 23 March 2009

and lol...

- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.2Bly-away EGS8p7) 
- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction
- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth 
- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars [Population III Stars] that the failed search has implied simply never existed
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar system formation theory wrong too
- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)
- These "shouldn't exist" – a supermassive black hole, an iron-poor star, and a dusty galaxy – but they do
- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.

http://kgov.com/evidence-against-the-big-bang

 

Quote

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Yes and Aphrodite is actually Elmer Fudd in drag and was directly responsive for the TET Offensive.

 

Quote

Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet.

 

 

Quote

inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997).

Swing and a MISS (again)...

"Since 1983, it has become clear that inflation is very flexible (parameters can be adjusted to give any result) and generically leads to a multiverse consisting of patches in which any outcome is possible.  Imagine a scientific theory that was designed to explain and predict but ends up allowing literally any conceivable possibility without any rule about what is more likely.  What good is it?  It rules out nothing and can never be put to a real test."

Horgan, J (Interview):  Paul Steinhardt ( Pioneer of Inflation Theory, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton); Scientific American, 1 December 2014.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

 

"That’s why I called it a cartoon of a theory – because we don’t understand how inflation works in any fundamental sense."

Dr. George Efstathiou; Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/qa-planck-teach-us-universes-first-moments/

 

Quote

Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement.

Yes, just like Pixie Dust is a 'Significant Addition' to Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes.

 

Quote

So otherwise please demonstrate a supernatural being poofed the universe to how we see it?

Already did, (SEE Previous Post, just above).

The Real Question:  Show how Nature/Matter poofed itself into Existence prior to it's Existence...?

 

Quote

I know you can't demonstrate the supernatural

Ahhh, appears you haven't been keeping up on current events.

 

Quote

i can't throw out this big bang stuff for something that can t be demonstrated. I'd be irrational to do this surely. 

   Thanks Again !!!

My Word

 

Quote

Re dover. If you search.... the collapse of intelligent design- ken Miller lecture.

'kenneth miller'??  You obviously didn't catch my Full Exposition (You Tube): Science vs Scientism Ep. 10 - Evolution and Irreducible Complexity.

If you did, you would have been well advised to stick with your 'big bang' catastrophe above.  smh

 

Thanks Again,  Priceless.

 

[Zoltan777]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Didn't I already do that, in this very thread?  Right here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/210558-6-days-creation/?do=findComment&comment=2640394

 

Flat: 

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Please reconcile on a Sphere...?

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf

 

Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ).

The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.

Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

 

3. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? 

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

I have no idea.

 

regards

 

Oh dear!

Shall I believe in theories and anomalies or my eyes?