Scientist 'Make Up' Evidence to suit their needs.

[RobbyPants]

 

 

I'm astounded here recently. I get why lots of people don't believe in evolution but saying GPS disproves relativity when it's used relativity in its calculations and saying gravity is wrong, well as I've said I'm astounded. It's like that fixed earth idea in another thread. Have the tin foil hat people taken over this site. Used to have courteous reasoned debate. Also some people getting a bit angry in their posts with CAPS and the like. Relax people. Exchanging different ideas and outlooks shouldn't lead to anger but greater understanding.

Yeah, outside of here, I've encountered a lot of resistance to evolution and the big bang, but not gravity or heliocentricity. I've heard indirectly of objections to relativity and didn't understand it at first, until I realized that it causes problems with YEC (such as things like the speed of light and seeing light from stars that are more than 6,000 light years away. i.e. all of them but the sun). I remember seeing a list of entire scientific fields that you have to ignore to believe in YEC. It filled up most of the page.

 

 

Did that article mention what you DO have to believe in to adhere to creationist beliefs?

 

That seems like you're saying the only reason to believe the earth isn't moving is solely to fulfill a Bible-literalist world view, rather than because it's scientifically sound. If you need faith to accept the tenants, then it's not a scientific theory. I was under the impression that the OP posted this as scientific fact, not as something that required faith to believe.

[neil_]

   Not everyone here is an evolutionist brother.   

 

I didn’t say or even think otherwise. Moreover, I really don’t understand how exactly is that connected to the topic I discussed in the quoted text.

 

By the way, to my surprise I couldn’t find, upon my return, this thread:

“Can any evolutionist provide a single fact without an assumption…?”

 

Deleted? An entire thread? I find that very strange. Could you please explain? Thanks.

 

Sure here it is...

From the WCF Terms of Service (Board Rules)

This is a privately funded message board, we reserve the right to edit or remove any postings that we feel are detrimental to the fellowship on this board, or detrimental to the witness of the board, as we see fit. It is not possible to read every post. If you see a board violation, please report it using the “Report Post” button.

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by GoldenEagle
<<< Edits in green >>>

[neil_]

  Thank You GE, thank you very much.. I feel like people are questioning my faith just because I disagree with one little thing.    

 

I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Again, that text of mine (quoted by GE) had NOTHING to do with you – or any YEC. It was about evolution (in several of its forms).

Edited August 31, 2013 by neil_

[neil_]

  I'm astounded here recently.  

 

You’ll be even more. Just stick around.

 

 

   I get why lots of people don't believe in evolution but saying GPS disproves relativity when it's used relativity in its calculations    

 

Indeed, why to bother to google things instead of just claiming what you want? So there you are, comfy in your armchair, puffing your cigar and enjoying your brandy, proudly claiming your false universe: the balloon universe. A balloon exactly like those seen raised by kids in parks. Only that in yours, there is nothing inside, and nothing outside… Tell me, do you really call this science?

 

Regardless, I already gave a link (in the thread “For those that believe in the Big Bang…” – last page) clearly showing that that universe (your universe) does not exist. I understand if you conveniently skip it.

 

As to Einstein and GPS, of course you would claim what you had been WRONGLY taught in your schools. In fact, Einstein is unable to explain things in regard to GPS operation. Here, let me educate you, since googling is apparently too much for you:

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1843.pdf

(you may also want to read his book and his other scientific papers dealing with Einstein – that is, proving Einstein wrong on multiple topics)

 

Let me put it this way: on one side it’s you and all the other theorists in the world (none of them ever checking their own claims in reality). On the other side it’s the people who actually made GPS work (including and actually foremost Ronald Hatch – by the way, GPS wouldn’t work without his PERSONAL patents). Now you tell me, who wins? Because, let me share with you of a basic thing: GPS actually works – and it doesn’t do it in conformity with Einstein’s theories of relativity. In other words, according to Einstein, GPS shouldn’t work…

 

Oh, and I think people like you should REALLY read this (it speaks about Hatch too):

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htm

 

And after you’re done with this link, why don’t you find by yourself THOUSANDS more of such links (tell me if you’re again too lazy). After you’re done with them, well, welcome to REALITY. It would have taken you some time but you’ll be finally awake.

 

 

  and saying gravity is wrong  

 

I understand if you choose to ignore all the evidence I have given so far. I mean, you surely wouldn’t want your universe to be proven to not exist, so you stick your head in the sand. I can understand that. However, let’s for the moment ignore, both of us, all that contrary evidence (should be easy for you, since you already have done that). So I’m waiting for you to PROVE (not claim, but to actually prove) gravity in the universe (let’s say beyond our solar system). Looking forward. And I remind you, just as I did to ‘alphaparticle’, that there’s a Nobel prize involved, so you should be motivated enough.

 

 

  It's like that fixed earth idea in another thread.   

 

The Earth is indeed fixed. I suppose soon I’ll have to address this, since I’m growing tired with all you nonbelievers. I’ve delayed that, since it would require my exclusive attention (that is, not replying to other things at all - no time). But it’s coming soon. In a city near you.

 

 

  Have the tin foil hat people taken over this site. 

 

You still haven’t proved your universe, while I have already disproved it in already several ways (and I will in several more). So talk all you want, all you have is empty talk.

 

 

   Used to have courteous reasoned debate.  

 

You know what, I’m sick of atheists claiming that reason is actually with them, and not with the believers. So here is me giving you a chance to actually stand before what you claim (reason).

 

Let’s start easy: why exactly do you think you (and all the atheists in the world) can understand the universe? Because let me bring reason to you: you simply can’t claim you have understood the universe if the primary question is left unanswered: why exactly do you think you can EVER understand the universe?

 

Looking forward.

 

 

  Also some people getting a bit angry in their posts with CAPS and the like.     

 

No, I don’t get angry with caps. Some use bold, some use caps (faster!) – to underline an idea. It’s that simple. But you tell me: why do you get angry by NOT using caps? You’ll eventually get it.

[neil_]

   That seems like you're saying the only reason to believe the earth isn't moving is solely to fulfill a Bible-literalist world view, rather than because it's scientifically sound.    

 

So you call geocentrism as not “scientifically sound”, while you call your universe (the big bang universe) as “scientifically sound”. I understand. Now you tell me, how can a universe of which 95% are fictional things (by definition!) be scientific (let alone “scientifically sound”)? Because in your universe, the real things (the 5% - the real matter, the real energy) doesn’t work UNTIL you postulate those completely fictional things. Now, is there anything else you’d like to know?

 

 

 If you need faith to accept the tenants, then it's not a scientific theory.     

 

Now this is extremely funny. Because all we can see is microevolution (variation). Not a single human EVER has seen macroevolution. And yet you claim macroevolution. If that’s not faith, I don’t know what is…

 

Evolution is not science, simply because is not observable, testable, repeatable. Moreover, as Popper showed, is not falsifiable and therefore is not science, according to YOUR definition. Claim differently all you want, it won’t make you right.

[RobbyPants]

 

   That seems like you're saying the only reason to believe the earth isn't moving is solely to fulfill a Bible-literalist world view, rather than because it's scientifically sound.    

 

So you call geocentrism as not “scientifically sound”, while you call your universe (the big bang universe) as “scientifically sound”. I understand. Now you tell me, how can a universe of which 95% are fictional things (by definition!) be scientific (let alone “scientifically sound”)? Because in your universe, the real things (the 5% - the real matter, the real energy) doesn’t work UNTIL you postulate those completely fictional things. Now, is there anything else you’d like to know?

 

 

Well, geocentrism was pretty throughly disproved several centuries ago, so yeah, I would say it's  not scientifically sound. Aside from that, are you saying that you've disproven the big bang, or something? If so, how? Also, what are you talking about "95% fictional things"?

 

 

 

 If you need faith to accept the tenants, then it's not a scientific theory.     

 

Now this is extremely funny. Because all we can see is microevolution (variation). Not a single human EVER has seen macroevolution. And yet you claim macroevolution. If that’s not faith, I don’t know what is…

 

Evolution is not science, simply because is not observable, testable, repeatable. Moreover, as Popper showed, is not falsifiable and therefore is not science, according to YOUR definition. Claim differently all you want, it won’t make you right.

 

 

If you mean that we haven't observed a "macroevolution"* in our lifetime, then you are right. They don't happen that quickly. If you mean that we haven't observed organisms making large changes throughout the history of the earth, we have recorded dozens of transitional forms. The problem with thinking in terms of "final forms" is that it only looks at the world as we can view it today: looking at all creatures currently living and any fossils we've found.

 

 

* The terms microevolution and macroevolution are really misnomers. In order for evolution to happen in two different ways, organisms would either need two types of DNA, or somehow, mutations would have to happen in different mechanisms. A "macroevolution" is nothing more than the sum of many "microevolutions" over a long period of time. The two terms only exist so people can half claim to believe in evolution.

[neil_]

 Well, geocentrism was pretty throughly disproved several centuries ago   

 

Not at all. If you refer to Galileo, not only he didn’t have any evidence (really none; in fact the situation is so amusing that even hardcore mainstreamers admit this, only you don’t !), but you still don’t have any evidence. Moreover, you CANNOT have any evidence as long as you stick to relativity (I already addressed this in another thread). And if you drop relativity, guess which one is the only cosmology left standing? Yep, that one.

 

Now let me adjust your wrong history: the first EVER “evidence” supporting heliocentrism appeared merely one and a half century ago: the stellar parallax. But is that actual evidence for heliocentrism? Only if you explain the negative parallaxes. Because Hipparcos showed plenty of those. Let me remind you that in YOUR universe, negative parallaxes can’t exist. But they can exist in a geocentric universe…

 

 

    Aside from that, are you saying that you've disproven the big bang, or something?    

 

Sure, buddy. It only takes me 2 words to throw your universe away. Here they are, again: accelerated expansion. Now if you can fix “the most profound problem”, I guarantee you a Nobel prize. Now you tell me: are you motivated enough? Looking forward.

 

Of course, the evidence against big bang is much more (pretty much everything, ironically including the evidence called in favor for big bang), so after you’ll get your Nobel for that I look forward to moving to other things. At that point you should only be concerned about this: how much room do you have on your shelves?

 

 

  Also, what are you talking about "95% fictional things"?      

 

Indeed, each and every time I have to tell evolutionists what they believe in, because they don’t really know: they are simply too busy believing, to bother knowing what is it that they actually believe in.

 

Buddy, 95% or your universe is 2 “hypothetical” (that’s a quote) things: dark energy and dark matter.

 

What does “hypothetical” mean? Well, synonyms for it are: imaginary, speculative, etc.

 

And antonyms for it are: real, true, confirmed, actual…

 

So yes, they (you) state two UNREAL things and then they claim their (your) cosmology refers to REALITY? Yes, that’s exactly what they (you) do.

 

Well, compared to THIS, someone claiming a “spaghetti monster” would be half-SCIENTIFIC. Because the spaghetti is real, you know…

 

 

  If you mean that we haven't observed a "macroevolution"* in our lifetime, then you are right.

 

No, buddy. What I claim is that NOBODY has observed macroevolution EVER.

 

Secondly, why exactly would you claim something you cannot prove? One of the two: admit that it‘s only faith, or stop believing it. In either case please stop calling it science.

 

 

   If you mean that we haven't observed organisms making large changes throughout the history of the earth, we have recorded dozens of transitional forms.      

 

Indeed, evolutionists never know what they believe in. They just believe. Buddy, through a not that little part of the history of Earth, according to YOUR theory, there was no life on Earth – NONE.

 

Secondly, if you’re such a hardcore gradualist, what happened to Gould? The poor fellow worked decades not only trying to find those transitional forms that you wave with such an ease, but he was forced to postulate a very different theory of evolution due to his failure of finding them. Now you tell me: who understood evolution better, Gould or you? If it is you, then why was Gould embraced by mainstream? If it was Gould, then why exactly are you still an evolutionist (and worst of all, a gradualist), since you just threw the mother of all your assumptions to trash?

 

By the way, uniformitarianism is mentioned in the Bible (not in a favorable context, obviously). How about that?

 

 

 The problem with thinking in terms of "final forms" is that it only looks at the world as we can view it today: looking at all creatures currently living and any fossils we've found.

 

I really don’t understand what you’re saying – but it doesn’t take you off the hook anyway. My argument (actually, Meta_Agape’s argument) stands.

 

 

  The terms microevolution and macroevolution are really misnomers. 

 

No, they’re not. In fact they are so much NOT, that even Creationists admit microevolution (variation).

 

 

 In order for evolution to happen in two different ways   

 

It doesn’t happen in two different ways. What could you be possibly talking about?

 

 

  A "macroevolution" is nothing more than the sum of many "microevolutions" over a long period of time.    

 

So it doesn’t happen in two different ways…

 

 

  The two terms only exist so people can half claim to believe in evolution.   

 

No, buddy. The 2 terms exist because they describe two very different things. One refers to a real thing, the other does not.

 

So I agree with what you previously said: “If you need faith to accept the tenants, then it's not a scientific theory. “

 

Now all that is left is for you to agree with what you said…

[RobbyPants]

Gould didn't believe in gradual change (or rather, that it wasn't a central tenant to evolution that Darwin supported), although he wasn't defeated. He wanted a revised theory of evolution. He's frequently quote-mined by creationists (the bolded part is the part that creationists often cite, with the rest for context):

 

 

Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. Yet, as I argue in essay 17, Thomas Henry Huxley divided the two issues of natural selection and gradualism and warned Darwin that his strict and unwarranted adherence to gradualism might undermine his entire system. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly. Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory.

 

So, that being said, disproving gradual change is certainly not the same as disproving evolution, as Gould would posit.

 

Regarding dark matter, what does it have to do with evolution? It sounds more like it would pertain to the big bang, yet you're talking about it in the context of evolutionists. Disproving one of those wouldn't disprove the other. Also, disproving both wouldn't prove creationism (and certainly not any one particular god). You are jumping to a lot of weird conclusions, there.

[neil_]

 Gould didn't believe in gradual change   

 

Simply because he couldn’t find it. Darwin also couldn’t find it. Although that didn’t stop him from further advocating evolution, did it?

 

 

  or rather, that it wasn't a central tenant to evolution that Darwin supported   

 

Really? Would you show me exactly where in his book does Darwin say that? Because I always thought darwinism equals gradualism. But perhaps we didn’t read the same book, so - looking forward.

 

 

 although he wasn't defeated.    

 

Who wasn’t defeated?

 

 

  He wanted a revised theory of evolution.   

 

Of course he would. I mean, he, just like you and all the other atheists in the world, wouldn’t instead turn to God, would he? Because that’s the very essence of any discussion about evolution (no matter how theistic evolutionists try to claim differently – they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, because evolution is actually THE OPPOSITE of what the Bible says).

 

 

  He's frequently quote-mined by creationists (the bolded part is the part that creationists often cite, with the rest for context):   

 

He’s not quote-mined by Creationists, instead he’s quoted by Creationists. But you tell me: why wouldn’t they (us) quote him?

 

As for the bold part, don’t worry, there are SO MANY other things Gould said that evolutionists have problems with…

 

 

   So, that being said, disproving gradual change is certainly not the same as disproving evolution  

 

Buddy, you miss the main point: if the mother of all evolutionary assumptions is thus shown wrong (moreover, by one of the most fervent evolutionists ever), why is ANYONE still an evolutionist?

 

Let me give you an example (because I’m sure you’re trying hard to NOT understand): if I claim the Moon is made of cheese, and construct an entire universe starting from this, and then I find out that the Moon isn’t actually of cheese, wouldn’t you agree that I should throw away the entire theory (everything that follows that initial premise)?

 

So, if uniformitarianism is thrown away by evolutionists themselves, then why is there still a theory of evolution? Why are still evolutionists in the world?

 

 

   Regarding dark matter, what does it have to do with evolution? It sounds more like it would pertain to the big bang  

 

Indeed, evolutionists never know what they believe in. I have to tell them each time.

 

OK, but for the last time. Buddy, let me inform you that besides biological evolution (itself split into two, by multiple criteria: micro or macro, gradualism or punctuationism), there are also theories claiming cosmic evolution (aka big bang), chemical evolution, geological evolution. How exactly did you manage to skip those? Moreover, how could you possibly have biological evolution WITHOUT those prior types of evolution? Looking forward.

 

 

  Disproving one of those wouldn't disprove the other.   

 

Of course it would. Because one follows the other…

 

 

   Also, disproving both wouldn't prove creationism   

 

Really? Then what would it prove?

 

 

 (and certainly not any one particular god)  

 

Really? For example, would it prove this god: Amaterasu? Because if you call “god” someone who pulls food from rectum, nose and mouth, then you’re really gone, buddy.

 

Meanwhile, you still have to explain how it is possible, in an atheistic worldview, that a millennia old book (the Bible) speaks about the expansion of the universe. Looking forward.

 

 

  You are jumping to a lot of weird conclusions, there. 

 

So far, you’re the one with the “weird conclusions”, buddy. Especially regarding your dance between gradualism and punctuationism, but not only.

[OneLight]

Closed for review