Evolutionary Theory, Creationism, Panspermia, Simulation Hypothesis? What say you? Any

T. A. Gardner said:
You might ask IBDM and ITN about that, they are what you call "experts" on getting physics wrong!
Click to expand...
@Tobytone, just an FYI, T. A. Gardner is another science pretender. He has been embarrassed several times for getting science totally wrong and drawing bogus conclusions. He and Daylight63 both are devout Global Warming and Climate Change worshipers, and the only thing that prevents them from bullying and intimidating others into believing/worshiping as they do is actual science which runs counter to their religious faith.

Daylight63 and T. A. Gardner are both scientifically illiterate. Presume everything they have to say, including all the bullying and down-talking they do is simply last-ditch-effort desperation flailing. If you allow them to fool you, you will only have yourself to blame.
 
IBDaMann said:
Today is your lucky day. I'm going to give you all the correct answers.

Before I begin, I want to address something you wrote:

I'm also going to drop the word "theory," as well as the words "Darwin's" and "of." I'm not going to write out "Darwin's theory of evolution" every time. I will simply write "Evolution", and you are to understand that to mean nothing other than Darwin's theory as supported in "On the Origin of Species."

Having gotten that out of the way, notice your use of the words "our origins," implying origins of life. That is your first mistake. Evolution has no place in a discussion on origins of life. Evolution explain the origins of species, i.e. the extinction of species and the emergence of others. Evolution is not, however, a theory of abiogenesis. Evolution begins with the assumption that life began at some point, and I believe this assumption is universally accepted, even by those who HATE Evolution for religious reasons. Whether one believes that life was created by Yahweh, or believes that life materialized from other dimensions or that life sprung from non-life, everyone universally accepts that life began at one point. That is where Evolution begins. Life came to be, and began changing/evolving.

Ergo, Evolution is totally compatible with most belief systems, with young-earth Christians being a notable exception. Evolution requires lengthy/vast time periods whereas young-earthism precludes lengthy/vast time periods.

Let's take a look at something ThatOwlCoward wrote:


ThatOwlCoward is a moron. Evolution is not science; it is a theory, but not a scientific theory. It can't be. Science predicts nature, which describes future effects given present causes (cause <--> effect). Science cannot speak to the past. No claims about the unobserved past
can rise above being mere speculation. The Big Bang, Evolution, the location of Jimmy Hoffa's grave, etc.. are all great theories, but they are not science. Of course, fans of any particular speculation about the past will tell you that it's settled science, and even tell you that they did assignments in the 5th grade plagiarized from Encyclopedia Britanica, but they would be greatly confused.


One can see how the negligence of ThatOwlCoward's education system deprived her of the education and critical reasoning skills needed to be able to express rational political views and to effectively compete in a forum of ideas.


Of course. If they were science, they wouldn't be belief systems.


All of this is speculation, no matter how "certain" the individual making the claim might be.


Don't conflate issues. Words are omitted for ease of writing. References to the "fossil record" however, are like warmizombie (Global Warming worshiper) references to "The Data." At this point you are witnessing speculation transformed into religion, with the worshiper pointing to his source of truth, e.g. Bible, Q'ran, etc. "The Bible says 'do unto others'," "the fossil record says that frogs didn't turn green until 12:17 a.m. on Wednesday, 117,634,449 years ago after a particularly heavy rain and strong gusts coming out of the east," etc..

Always remember, you can tell when religious faith is involved when the one preaching claims some sort of omniscience, with claims of knowing the unobserved past as one of the most prevalent omniscience fallacies. The Global Warming and Climate Change religions claim to know the earth's average global equilibrium temperature with zero margin of error, ocean level rise to infinite precision (2.2mm/year), average ocean level pH with no margin of error, and everything else about nature because devotion to the faith brings divine wisdom and knowledge.

Remember scientists can be religious. Warmizombies and climate lemmings are forever citing scientists among their clergy as confirmation that their faith is true. That logic implies that Christianity is confirmed because of those scientists who proclaim Christianity. Likewise, Islam is confirmed to be true. In fact, all the religions must therefore be true, all at the same time.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Click to expand...
is it science to say there was gravity in the past?
 
IBDaMann said:
Velocity doesn't matter. The results will be the same. Read up on Relativity.


Correction: You don't understand Relativity.

2nd Correction: Einstein's theory of Relativity works always, everywhere and at every scale. You simply don't understand this.
Click to expand...
Newton's second law gives the wrong answer all cases except where acceleration equals zero. But the error is so infinitesimally small we can ignore it all the time except when velocity approaches the speed of light; so Newton is an excellent approximation. F=ma depends on time, and since Newton didn't know the speed of light was the same to all observers in all moving reference frames, he didn't know that this resulted in relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction.

The equations of relativity give nonsense answers at quantum scales. That is why we know general relativity doesn't provide answers at the quantum scale, and that is precisely why the search for a quantum theory of gravity has been an active area of research for decades.
 
Cypress said:
Newton's second law gives the wrong answer all cases except where acceleration equals zero.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Newton's law has never been falsified.
Cypress said:
But the error is so infinitesimally small we can ignore it all the time except when velocity approaches the speed of light;
Click to expand...
Newton's law works near the speed of light too.
Cypress said:
so Newton is an excellent approximation.
Click to expand...
It is not an approximation.
Cypress said:
F=ma depends on time,
Click to expand...
Time is not a factor in this equation.
Cypress said:
and since Newton didn't know the speed of light was the same to all observers in all moving reference frames, he didn't know that this resulted in relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction.
Click to expand...
Newton's law isn't about time dilation or length contraction. It does, however, work perfectly even near the speed of light.
Cypress said:
The equations of relativity give nonsense answers at quantum scales.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'quantum scale'.
Cypress said:
That is why we know general relativity doesn't provide answers at the quantum scale,
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a 'quantum scale'.
Cypress said:
and that is precisely why the search for a quantum theory of gravity has been an active area of research for decades.
Click to expand...
There is no 'quantum theory of gravity'.

You are ignoring Newton's laws (all of them!), Einstein's law of general relativity, and you apparently no nothing of quantum mechanics or how it was developed, Sybil.
 
Cypress said:
Newton's second law gives the wrong answer all cases except where acceleration equals zero.
Click to expand...
But that is not what you wrote previously. You just pivoted from claiming that certain velocities render errors (wrong) to non-zero forces rendering different results (correct).
 
Tobytone said:
There are numerous issues with the prevailing wisdom of the day that seem to be merely inconvenient snags to the 'overwhelming evidence,' making them easy to overlook. However, I see many of these issues as death blows to the entire 'religion of evolution'. So, I must start somewhere—why not with the first one that gave me pause. It’s going to take considerable detail to articulate my opening salvo. Ideally, we can close this one out before moving on.

When examining the Grand Canyon, we see what evolutionists call proof of the passage of billions of years, along with thousands of fossils in nearly every layer of strata. The ‘prevailing theory’ suggests we’re observing nearly 2 billion years of sedimentary buildup at an average rate of 0.1 mm per year. In my view, things get crazy when confronted with the following observation that many highly qualified geologists point out. It also makes sense to many laymen who consider the alternative view.

All except the very bottom of the canyon consist of sedimentary layers (primarily sandstone) that are nearly perfectly flat for miles, extending well beyond the canyon’s borders. Many of the thousands of fossils in these layers exhibit exquisite detail. Thousands of sea like creatures, alligators, and dinosaurs are so detailed they look as if they could come to life and walk or swim out of the rocks.

It seems impossible for these layers to form slowly over billions of years, somehow trapping living creatures that either forgot to decay or were overlooked by hungry hunters. For starters, these layers should show evidence of erosion from wind, rain, or from river beds cutting through existing layers and depositing fossils. This would be evident through very uneven layering, complete with riverbeds and significant variation in surface materials. At the very least, we would expect to see evidence of sand dunes or small cliff faces, resembling even the most boring of landscapes. And I’ve yet to hear compelling explanations for the detailed preservation of animals that decay rapidly. The slow buildup over billions of years simply isn't believable.

This leads me to what you might have already guessed: the hypothesis that a global flood could have caused what we see at the canyon and, frankly, all over the world. Such an event would explain how the layers were created rapidly enough to trap those animals and preserve them for ages. It also explains the presence of sea-like creatures and the of water needed to create sandstone in flat layers.

Some scientists claim these layers result from seas slowly rising and receding over billions of years, easily reaching the canyon’s location, but they offer no convincing explanation of how dinosaurs and other land animals ended up fossilized in these slowly encroaching seas. Rapid sedimentary layering and the quick deaths of so many different creatures are much easier to reconcile when considering the presupposition of a worldwide flood of epic proportions, killing all life in a very short time, then slowly receding over 370 days. These layers would form exactly as they are seen in the canyon and in many places around the globe.

Are you aware of better theories for the Grand Canyon’s formation, or do you see validity in my skepticism? It would make it easier for me to accept the billions of years narrative. Also, I'd prefer not to vere off on any other points of biblical claims for now and focus here as my assertions are not meant to defend specific biblical claims other than the actual possibility of a global flood for whatever reason. Sorry for the lengthy response but I wanted to attempt making my skepticisms as clear as possible.

View attachment 39288
Click to expand...
previewimage-Wp6NKv.jpg
 
Cypress said:
^^ Never set foot in a college physics class.
Click to expand...
YOU'RE the one ignoring Newton's law of motion!

YOU also ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, Einstein's laws, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Planck's law.

You can't blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Sybil!
 
Tobytone said:
There are numerous issues with the prevailing wisdom of the day that seem to be merely inconvenient snags to the 'overwhelming evidence,' making them easy to overlook. However, I see many of these issues as death blows to the entire 'religion of evolution'. So, I must start somewhere—why not with the first one that gave me pause. It’s going to take considerable detail to articulate my opening salvo. Ideally, we can close this one out before moving on.

When examining the Grand Canyon, we see what evolutionists call proof of the passage of billions of years, along with thousands of fossils in nearly every layer of strata. The ‘prevailing theory’ suggests we’re observing nearly 2 billion years of sedimentary buildup at an average rate of 0.1 mm per year. In my view, things get crazy when confronted with the following observation that many highly qualified geologists point out. It also makes sense to many laymen who consider the alternative view.

All except the very bottom of the canyon consist of sedimentary layers (primarily sandstone) that are nearly perfectly flat for miles, extending well beyond the canyon’s borders. Many of the thousands of fossils in these layers exhibit exquisite detail. Thousands of sea like creatures, alligators, and dinosaurs are so detailed they look as if they could come to life and walk or swim out of the rocks.

It seems impossible for these layers to form slowly over billions of years, somehow trapping living creatures that either forgot to decay or were overlooked by hungry hunters. For starters, these layers should show evidence of erosion from wind, rain, or from river beds cutting through existing layers and depositing fossils. This would be evident through very uneven layering, complete with riverbeds and significant variation in surface materials. At the very least, we would expect to see evidence of sand dunes or small cliff faces, resembling even the most boring of landscapes. And I’ve yet to hear compelling explanations for the detailed preservation of animals that decay rapidly. The slow buildup over billions of years simply isn't believable.

This leads me to what you might have already guessed: the hypothesis that a global flood could have caused what we see at the canyon and, frankly, all over the world. Such an event would explain how the layers were created rapidly enough to trap those animals and preserve them for ages. It also explains the presence of sea-like creatures and the of water needed to create sandstone in flat layers.

Some scientists claim these layers result from seas slowly rising and receding over billions of years, easily reaching the canyon’s location, but they offer no convincing explanation of how dinosaurs and other land animals ended up fossilized in these slowly encroaching seas. Rapid sedimentary layering and the quick deaths of so many different creatures are much easier to reconcile when considering the presupposition of a worldwide flood of epic proportions, killing all life in a very short time, then slowly receding over 370 days. These layers would form exactly as they are seen in the canyon and in many places around the globe.

Are you aware of better theories for the Grand Canyon’s formation, or do you see validity in my skepticism? It would make it easier for me to accept the billions of years narrative. Also, I'd prefer not to vere off on any other points of biblical claims for now and focus here as my assertions are not meant to defend specific biblical claims other than the actual possibility of a global flood for whatever reason. Sorry for the lengthy response but I wanted to attempt making my skepticisms as clear as possible.

View attachment 39288
Click to expand...
do you see the theory of evolution as some sort of threat to religion?
 
Truck Fump / h1b said:
do you see the theory of evolution as some sort of threat to religion?
Click to expand...
I believe the way science often presents the history of Earth and evolution can be misleading because it's frequently portrayed as indisputable fact rather than using phrases like 'we believe,' 'theory,' or 'our best guess.' This approach might unduly influence young, impressionable students, potentially deterring them from exploring or even considering the concept of God. Students should be introduced to summaries of various belief systems in an unbiased manner, without the negative undertones often associated with people of faith or with how faith is defined. Therefore, I do see significant consequences stemming from what could be described as the 'big lie.
 
Daylight63 said:
I am very intrigued now. Because in order for your statement to be true your job would have to be in an alternate reality where Stokes Law simply doesn't hold.

And I'm doubtful you are visiting from that alternate dimension.
Click to expand...
Apologies for my delay in responding; I've been away and didn't have access to my computer, and for various reasons, I didn't want to sign in with my profile. However, I've written an extensive paper that addresses all my concerns and opinions on this topic in detail. I'll share it soon, ensuring you have the chance to read it if you're interested.

In the meantime, I promised to explain further. If you were to look up the largest bucket line dredge operation in the US during the mid-90s, you'd find something similar to my experience. I was deeply involved in an Army Civil Engineers project, where I initially operated massive equipment, including bucket dredges, and later contributed to strategy, production, and impact assessments. The specific 'pool' (which refers to very large man-made bodies of water) I worked on influenced the amount and type of silt that would temporarily cloud the clear water. After a couple of days of settling, the water would clear, revealing layers of silt over essentially washed gravel.

The challenge in predicting silt accumulation comes from the fact that Stokes' Law, it's only accurate in relatively calm water. You would really need to see the operation to grasp how turbulent it can become.

On another note regarding the flood story, after 370 days, the Ark is said to have landed on a mountain, but the time taken for the water to recede isn't specified. If we're considering the flood narrative as potentially true, one must assume the water's retreat would have taken a considerable amount of time.

I have a lot to do now, and several people to reply to. I'll notify you when my full opinion on my 'Pet Peeve' is posted. While the Grand Canyon is mentioned, my primary grievance extends far beyond it, so I've covered numerous related issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top