Politics, Politics, Politics

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Macroevolution which occurs from many small changes over thousands of years is rather hard for us to see with our 80-100ish year lifespans. Your second sentence if simply untrue. We've seen and documented speciation through more rapid transitional processes such as two new species of american goatsbeard which developed within the last century due to polyploidy.
2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.
Again, this is completely untrue. We have many cases of transitional fossils. Surely you've heard of Archaeopteryx?....it's only been known of for about 160 years. Maybe less well known in the general public are transitional fossils like Xiaotingia zhengi and Anchiornis. These are just a few twigs on the bush which led from non-avian dinosaurs to your fried chicken dinner. If you're unaware, you might want to start with reading something like "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution" by Carroll.
4) Geological timescale questioned. Evolution theory depends upon the great age of rocks calculated by the geologic timescale. This scale was based upon principles of geology recently invalidated by laboratory experiments. (French Academy of Science 1986, 1988, Geological Society 1993, Fusion, May-June 2000).

If this fact had been known in the 19th century, Darwin could never have formulated his theory. Evolution depends upon geological formations taking millions of years to form, and Darwin's geologist friend Charles Lyell provided those years with his principles of geology. It is these principles that now stand refuted.
Whoever wrote this made claims but only vague references with no clear supporting evidence. So it is hard to say what they were really trying to say. There's no significant doubt among scientists about the Earth being 4+ billion years old. Earlier, you posted a video from a creationist who has made statements supporting the idea the Earth is only thousands of years old. You do realize we have ice core data showing seasonal layers going back 800,000 years don't you? The logical conclusion being that part of the Earth's crust has been exposed and in the arctic regions for at least 800,000 years. Of course maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth 5,000 years ago and decided to add 800,000 years worth of ice layers just to fuck with us.
 
Macroevolution which occurs from many small changes over thousands of years is rather hard for us to see with our 80-100ish year lifespans. Your second sentence if simply untrue. We've seen and documented speciation through more rapid transitional processes such as two new species of american goatsbeard which developed within the last century due to polyploidy.

Again, this is completely untrue. We have many cases of transitional fossils. Surely you've heard of Archaeopteryx?....it's only been known of for about 160 years. Maybe less well known in the general public are transitional fossils like Xiaotingia zhengi and Anchiornis. These are just a few twigs on the bush which led from non-avian dinosaurs to your fried chicken dinner. If you're unaware, you might want to start with reading something like "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution" by Carroll.

Whoever wrote this made claims but only vague references with no clear supporting evidence. So it is hard to say what they were really trying to say. There's no significant doubt among scientists about the Earth being 4+ billion years old. Earlier, you posted a video from a creationist who has made statements supporting the idea the Earth is only thousands of years old. You do realize we have ice core data showing seasonal layers going back 800,000 years don't you? The logical conclusion being that part of the Earth's crust has been exposed and in the arctic regions for at least 800,000 years. Of course maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the earth 5,000 years ago and decided to add 800,000 years worth of ice layers just to fuck with us.

So can you find any pictures of transitional fossils?
 
Congratulations....you're the first person I've had to call out for tu quoque.

Well, you're the first person who has ever congratulated me on my quoque. :oops:
Thank you...I guess. Most people find my qouque tiny and unimpressive. 😞

However, there is a fundamental difference between the unknown and the unknowable...

And we are no closer to understanding the Unknowable using the scientific method, which by the way, was provided to us by the Creator.

Today I can take two synchronized atomic clocks, move one to the top of a mountain while leaving the other near sea level and in a relatively short period of time...

...we can demonstrate that Epstein didn't ******* himself.

Yes, I know. We can use the tools provided by Creation to better understand Creation. Everything we haven't invented yet, already exists in another form. Everything we don't know yet is already known by God. I'm not brainwashed though. I recognize that the God who gave us limoncello and '67 Corvettes; also gave us AOC, who has helpfully pointed out, that we actually can't pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

Of course you're under no such obligation....which is quite convenient for you since you're also unable to provide a testable hypothesis proving or disproving intelligent design.

Sure I can. Look up at night.

And it is convenient, albeit limiting, for you to refuse to acknowledge that there is Creative Intelligence and Masterful Power in the universe greater than the smug dipnods populating this insignificant exo-planet. There are however, people who can help deprogram you from the Darwinian cult, but you have to want the help first. 😉
 
Yes, can you? I've given you the name of three you could easily find if you want to educate yourself. There's at least a dozen specimens of Archaeopteryx that have been documented. There is this cool new thing these days....all the rage....called Google

Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all. The latest discovery of a fossil that treads the line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is leading palaeontologists to reassess the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two.

 
scientific method, which by the way, was provided to us by the Creator
Please provide your evidence the scientific method was provided to us by your creator.
...we can demonstrate that Epstein didn't ******* himself.
deflection....you're really starting to "debate" much as macnlies and the subwoofer do
Sure I can. Look up at night.
"Look up at night" isn't a testable hypothesis for the existence, or lack thereof, of intelligent design.
And it is convenient, albeit limiting, for you to refuse to acknowledge that there is Creative Intelligence and Masterful Power in the universe greater than the smug dipnods populating this insignificant exo-planet.
Provide actual evidence of this rather than simply your wishful feelings and I'll acknowledge it. This all started with you claiming our placement in the solar system was "overwhelming evidence of masterful creation" but the evidence at hand suggests such arrangements are likely to exist billions or even trillions of times over....not to mention the fact there is evidence elsewhere in our solar system, well outside this "meticulously designed" blue orb, is at least one location where life as we have on Earth could exist.
 
Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all. The latest discovery of a fossil that treads the line between birds and non-avian dinosaurs is leading palaeontologists to reassess the creature that has been considered the evolutionary link between the two.

Did you attempt to read and comprehend that article, or just copy & paste the first two sentences because you thought it sounded like something pseudo relevant? If you're thinking this article says Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional fossil, you need to go back and read it with your thinking cap on. It says Archaeopteryx wasn't "the first bird" which was almost a certainty to anyone who actually understands evolution. Archaeopteryx was just the oldest example we had found of a creature that was on a spectrum between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. We've subsequently found other similar creatures. Archaeopteryx, Xiaotingia zhengi and Anchiornis were all feathered creatures with significant transitional features between the non-avian dinosaurs and modern birds. If you actually read that article, surely you noticed that all three of the transitional fossils I had mentioned previously were listed in it.

Macroevolution isn't a climb up a single tree trunk drawing a direct line from one species to another. The tree of evolution is a very thick messy bush. Hence my categorizing Archaeopteryx and his pals as twigs on the bush which led from non-avian dinosaurs to your fried chicken dinner.
 
Please provide your evidence the scientific method was provided to us by your creator.

Oh, you needn't be so blandishing. He's your creator too. He imbued you with the innate cognition to apply those investigative principles you cherish to the point of blindness.

deflection....you're really starting to "debate" much as macnlies and the subwoofer do

Haha you Trumptard! I don't recognize your rules, so I simply will not engage on your terms. Nor am I motivated to, as you refute mine. I have however, scored several of your major fallacy points -- maybe I could go for Godwin's Law.

"Look up at night" isn't a testable hypothesis for the existence, or lack thereof, of intelligent design.

It's better than a hypothesissy. It's irrefutable proof. Look up, it's there. Your limited principles cannot explain how it came to be. Mine can. It was created.

Provide actual evidence of this rather than simply your wishful feelings and I'll acknowledge it. This all started with you claiming our placement in the solar system was "overwhelming evidence of masterful creation" but the evidence at hand suggests such arrangements are likely to exist billions or even trillions of times over...

The actual evidence is all around us Luke. It is in every grain of matter. It is in limoncello and is particularly strong in '67 Corvettes. That there are billions of galaxies and trillions of exo-planets, only serves to authenticate and bolster the power of the Creator.
 
Oh, you needn't be so blandishing. He's your creator too. He imbued you with the innate cognition to apply those investigative principles you cherish to the point of blindness.
Yeah, I knew you'd deflect yet again given your inability to provide any actual evidence.
It's irrefutable proof. Look up, it's there.
It most certainly is not irrefutable proof. You want to believe some magical creator waved his hand and made it all come to be, but have no real evidence of this.
The actual evidence is all around us Luke. It is in every grain of matter. It is in limoncello and is particularly strong in '67 Corvettes. That there are billions of galaxies and trillions of exo-planets, only serves to authenticate and bolster the power of the Creator.
This is quite illustrative of the closed mind you've repeatedly demonstrated. You started all this claiming our precise distance from the sun, Earths tilt, etc. etc. was "perfectly and meticulously designed to support complex life " and "overwhelming evidence of masterful creation". Then when presented evidence this isn't unique at all, in fact there's likely a trillion or so similar places around the universe....and that life could actually exist elsewhere in our own solar system in places lacking those precise and meticulous characteristics....the evidence that actually refuted your claim here in the real world somehow just makes it even more "overwhelming evidence" in sky fairy land.

It's obvious with you it doesn't matter what the evidence is, the answer is somehow going to be sky fairies did it. I'd be happy to entertain some masterful creator if there's actual evidence presented of its existence....there just isn't any other than the wishful "thinking" such as yours. You on the other hand clearly start with an unyielding precept that there is a creator, and nothing will change your mind. Any evidence which negates what you claim or think merely gets transformed in your brain into whatever spin is required to not tarnish your preset idea.
 
I have a question, is there time out in space ? If there is, how could we measure it ? One day is just under 24 hours. around 1 month it takes for the moon to rotate around the earth. and it takes 365 days to make a year. How come we all keep seven day weeks? Evolution has no reason for a week. Only one thing constitutes a week, In six days God made the heavens and the earth, and He rested on the seventh day and hallowed it.
 
I have a question, is there time out in space ?
Yes....well there's actually spacetime everywhere. It's an Einstein thing....we seem to have a dearth of Einsteins on here though. Not sure it's worth trying to explain in depth.
If there is, how could we measure it ?
You measure time in space just like we do here on Earth, with a clock. As you move further away from the Earth's center of mass, your clock will go faster.....however if you start moving faster, through space, your clock will go slower. As I pointed out earlier, both of these time dilation factors have to be corrected for in the GPS system, otherwise your Iphone's maps wouldn't work.
Evolution has no reason for a week.
Uh....no....since evolution is a theory of biological organisms changing through history, not a calendar.
How come we all keep seven day weeks? Evolution has no reason for a week. Only one thing constitutes a week, In six days God made the heavens and the earth, and He rested on the seventh day and hallowed it.
Because our calendar grew out of the Roman calendar which was based on even older lunar calendars. The moon orbits the Earth every 28 days, leading to lunar "months" There's four primary phases of the moon which divided the lunar month into 7 day long weeks. The Romans named their 7 days for their 7 gods that flew around in the sky (Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter). The etymology of our names for Saturday, Sunday and Monday goes back to the Romans. The other day's names have changed over time.

Congratulations...your hallowed 7th day is named in honor of the Roman Sun god.....unless you're a 7th day Adventist, in which case your hallowed day is named for the the Roman god Saturn.

The Mayans didn't have 7 day weeks. They had two types of weeks, numbered weeks that were 13 days long and named weeks which were 20 days long. Guess their sky fairy was slower at heaven and earth buildin' than yours.
 
Last edited:
In case you're a 7th day Adventist, here's an amazing picture of your Saturn god taken by our Cassini probe while on the opposite side of Saturn from the Sun god. That tiny little blue speck in the left side of the picture peeking out between two of the rings is you....and the everyone/everything else on Earth.

1582115688224.png
 
Personally I don't believe time exist. Its simply a construct for us humans to quantify an hour, day, week. The passage of time is the result of Gravity. If there were no gravity, or you have no mass, you could move from point A to point B in an instant (spooky action at a distant). There is a Nova science special about it. They also mention that removing time from the equations, the laws of general relativity and quantum mechanics mesh quite nicely.
 
In case you're a 7th day Adventist, here's an amazing picture of your Saturn god taken by our Cassini probe while on the opposite side of Saturn from the Sun god. That tiny little blue speck in the left side of the picture peeking out between two of the rings is you....and the everyone/everything else on Earth.

View attachment 3159429
I am a Seventh Day Adventist. I don't want to argue or judge anyone for what they believe. I can only share with you what I believe and why. It troubles me when God is referred to as a sky fairy, angels have wings not the God I serve. I know a great deal about the pagan traditions of the past, but most humans do not know the history concerning sun worship or Saturn worship. People keep the Seventh Day Sabbath long before there was a Rome, the Israelite's were reminded to remember the Sabbath after they were freed from Egyptian captivity. The Israelite's who became Jews still keep the seventh day Sabbath today. If you don't believe in God and that he created everything, then that is not for me to convince you of.
 
It troubles me when God is referred to as a sky fairy, angels have wings not the God I serve.
Are you sure god doesn't have wings? How do you know? Can you post a picture? The bible speaks in several places of his wings. Are those passages literal or metaphorical? How can you actually know that?

Are you sure angels have wings? How do you know? Why would they have wings? The universe is 99.99+% vacuum.....wing's don't help you fly around there. Are the angels stuck in Earth's atmosphere? If they're not stuck in Earth's atmosphere and can travel throughout the universe...why would they need wings? Maybe it's because the humans who made up your bible had no concept there was anything but atmosphere above....and everything they knew of that flew had wings???
 
Personally I don't believe time exist. Its simply a construct for us humans to quantify an hour, day, week. The passage of time is the result of Gravity. If there were no gravity, or you have no mass, you could move from point A to point B in an instant (spooky action at a distant). There is a Nova science special about it. They also mention that removing time from the equations, the laws of general relativity and quantum mechanics mesh quite nicely.
That's interesting. Do you have a link or name of the Nova special or the published research? I'd like to watch that. There's certainly lots of work that has gone on for decades trying to figure out how to unify quantum mechanics and relativity. Both theories have been shown "time" and again to be correct in their respective areas, but they don't play together well.....kind of like watching a political debate!

Hours, days, weeks, are arbitrary human constructs to quantify periods of time. Without studying their work, I'm not sure I'm buying the concept of removing time from the equations...how do you remove time from E=mc^2 ????

Spooky action at a distance (at least in the context of Einstein's quote) doesn't mean moving an object from point A to point B in an instant. It was referring to quantum entangled particles that are separated....flipping one particle should cause the other one to also flip instantly.
 
That's interesting. Do you have a link or name of the Nova special or the published research? I'd like to watch that. There's certainly lots of work that has gone on for decades trying to figure out how to unify quantum mechanics and relativity. Both theories have been shown "time" and again to be correct in their respective areas, but they don't play together well.....kind of like watching a political debate!

Here is a "in a nut shell" version from TED
Wheeler DeWitt equation

And I was mistaken, it's not Nova, it was Through the Worm Hole with Morgan Freeman. I think Nova does touch on it in their Space Time series.
I suggest watching the whole episode, because well - science. but it starts around 16:00 you can also research Julian Barbour, and it;s rebuttal is right after it. I don't exactly buy into the entire theory, but I think it has some merit.

Spooky action at a distance (at least in the context of Einstein's quote) doesn't mean moving an object from point A to point B in an instant. It was referring to quantum entangled particles that are separated....flipping one particle should cause the other one to also flip instantly.

Yes, but science is using that entanglement to study the possibility of teleportation.
 
Back
Top