Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Science Disproves Evolution Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So the fact of the matter is that because you cannot read you go on and on about how stupid the scientific community is, what a moron Dodge is, and cannot even admit fault, but instead say, "if such is the case".

    You are a disingenuous fraud. Nothing you have to say means anything and likely your inability to comprehend what you read has influenced your religious beliefs as well.

    You really should put more effort into what you read and how you relate your feelings with the written word. Your credibility might increase at that time. Right now you appear to be nothing more than a lazy person.

    You have wasted enough of my time.

    Comment


    • I've a new proposal and it's not to just to stick it in your eye. My past as well as present notions are to simply say all scientific proposals are not all sound.

      In stars traveling at such speeds we need to take into considerations the dialation of time with moving objects. This is no prepossal on my part to defend my past error in revolutions, as thoughs had their start from me seeing a documentary where now I realise it was the commentator who mis-quoted. At that point I made such a post, my fault lied where I blindly defended my math not listening to a single word.

      There have been experaments with atomic clocks where two identicle clocks were calibrated side by side and each keeping precise time in accordance with one another. One clock was then placed on board a jet airliner taken to altitude and at jet speeds flown around for a number of hours. Then the same clock was brought back to it's original place along side the other atomic clock. The experimentors did find they no longer had the exact time as they once had before. They the experimentors before hand had already concieved there would be a time dialation in accordance to Einstiens theories. This experiment was concieved from the beginning to further prove these assumtions.

      With such knowledge in hand if we were stagnant in position watching our sun wizz by at such high rates of speed as known to be. Our then measured assumtions of distant galaxys could concievably be wrong. Knowing that the faster in speed one attains the slower their clocks do spin as proven in the earlier experiment, with the atomic clocks on board the jet air liners.

      It's theorised at the speed of light clocks stop. This would entale a crossing of the universe in zero time, but this would only be in realativity to the clocks aboard the vehicle traveling at such speed. As the clocks here at home would have clicked off millions of years.

      With our clocks here on earth suffering from this same dialation in time with us traveling at such high rates as our star the sun has been predicted to travel. Perhaps our analisis of distance are then flaud using the measurements of time as a bases in predicting distances. To what degree these flause could be I can't say at present. But at 186,000 miles per second these clock dialations could amount up to quite a bit!

      DOB!

      Comment


      • First things first. I need to see some accountability from you concerning your last little diatribe and erroneous comments before I will have the energy or desire to continue to entertain your "theories."

        How do we reconcile your inability to process written data and the resulting accusations of stupidity in the scientific community?

        Is there no contrition from you to those that you have called morons based on your poor reading skills?

        A simple "I'm sorry Dodge, or I'm sorry Bluewater" will due.

        Until that time, I have no interest in entertaining your poorly written attempts at painting the scientific community in a bad light.

        Comment


        • From the very first moment I ever opened my mouth, at the speed of light I've been condemed as a fool from the likes of you and Dodge for beliefs in God.

          Any and all of my posts were not in search of admiration, but only to at least have a few come to a conclusion that not all thoughts presented to be scientific are sound.

          Here again my first post on revolutions was flaud in the begining from the miss-statements of a documentary I had watched the previous evening. Without fore-thought I did in haste post as I did. Here again it was not done in seeking admiration, but to further points of simalar thoughts I've posted from before.

          Should your request of me to say I'm sorry so be it. I'm sorry, but my intent was not to decieve for self gradification but to further my above stated points.

          Shall I in turn ask of you or Dodge for such an apology in jumping on me for believing in God, or am I to assume your far to above one such as me for any such thing?

          In that reguard I don't honestly seek an apology, for I know we are all just men, and as such were all emotional beings.

          Puting that all aside, I do have a number of things and ideas to explore. As a matter of fact I wish we each could drop the sarcasm's, and debate ideas as we each might present them. In this realm I don't mind going first as such a position as being first is perhaps the one position to recieve the most criticism. But thats OK by me!

          I should like to start a post from the earliest known points concerning the discoveries of atoms. then continue through quantam mechanics to string theory, ending up with variable light speed.

          DOB!

          Comment


          • Hi Dobman53. You keep saying that Albert Einstein couldnít spell, in a pathetic analogy comparing him with you; but what you fail to understand is that English was Einsteinís second language. He did fine in German. Of course, Einstein didnít have a spell-checker available to him as you do, which youíre too lazy to use. Also, as Bluewater2 mentioned, your reading comprehension needs attention, demonstrated by your apparent misreading/misinterpretation of 250 million years as 250 thousand years. It makes me wonder what other things you misread/misinterpret/misunderstand.

            You stated that I jump on you for believing in God. That is incorrect. I question your intelligence for believing that Satan had sex with both Adam and Eve in a mythical Garden because you think the apple is a symbol for sex, and for believing that there is a race of Kenites working behind the scenes in some evil plot to enslave humanity by taking over the United Nations that you consider to be the vehicle for a New World Order. In my opinion, your delusional beliefs interfere with your perception of the reality that is around you, making your view of the world essentially distorted and unreal. I also object to your belief that everyone who does not accept your mythical Christ will be completely and utterly destroyed so that not a trace will be left of them; whereas you and your Elect disciples of Arnold Murray will live forever.

            At any rate, this thread was started by Dan Carlton (Pahu), whoís mission it is to refute evolutionary theory by spamming the forum with bits and pieces of out-of-context cut and paste propaganda from creationist websites. In my research I discovered that Pahu is conducting this campaign of his at several other sites, with the same threads, the same quote-mining propaganda, and literally the exact same words. I am a fact-checker, tracking down references and quotes to their original sources in order to demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty that creationists resort to in their manipulation of other peopleís words to further their cause.

            Dobman53, if you want to engage in an exchange of ideas about the history of science relating to subatomic particles, quantum mechanics and string theory, I would suggest you start your own thread elsewhere; because I donít see how that relates to the subject here. Besides, judging from your history of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misreading and lack of communication skills I doubt you would be able to meaningfully communicate anything of any consequence.

            Comment


            • "Shall I in turn ask of you or Dodge for such an apology in jumping on me for believing in God, or am I to assume your far to above one such as me for any such thing?"

              Please direct me for where I have "jumped on you" for believing in god. If I have done that as you have stated, I would absolutely appologize.

              If you feel that questioning your beliefs is the same as jumping on your beliefs, please let me know if that is the case and I will cease to do so.

              So far, it seems, honest questioning has done nothing more than expose your faulty assumptions, which I think is what questioning is about.

              Again, if you can show me where I "jumped on your belief in god", I will gladly appologize.

              Comment


              • I'll take your comments as a no!

                As for any of my posts their intensions were not to promote myself as you seem to think, if such were my actual cause don't you think I might actually use spell check or spend hours in wording such posts to then have it appear as I'm the real cats meow!!!

                So as you contribe as Dodge does in thinking such things as being so asured, such is not the case. Any such Einstien talk was only to say even ones whom we all look upon as greats had faults as well, nothing at all with me associating myself with him. But I can understand such things coming to the fore-front with ones personal thoughts. When all posts seem to be the launching pads of attack we all asume a defensive posture.

                I guess thats just the way it goes sometimes, as I seem to do it as well. In that aspect are any of us really all that innocent, perhaps not!!!

                DOB!

                Comment


                • "As for any of my posts their intensions were not to promote myself as you seem to think."

                  I would not take any of the posts by you as being promotional. Quite the contrary.

                  "I'll take your comments as a no!" No to what? Are you able to direct me to where I have jumped on your beliefs in god?

                  "When all posts seem to be the launching pads of attack we all asume a defensive posture." I'm sorry if you feel the need to be defensive when your erronious facts are displayed.

                  My greater concern is your lack of contrition.

                  "So as you contribe as Dodge does in thinking such things as being so asured, such is not the case." Huh? Why don't you stop pretending that you are in some Shakespearean play and speak normal English. It would help someone like me with my obviously limited intelligence to understand the points you are trying to make.

                  Comment


                  • First according to Dodge I'm a hillbilly hack now I'm supposed to be Shakespear, well thats another fine mess I've gotten myself into?? Maybe I should take up pig-latin next? I guess from now on with my obvious limited intelligence, I can no longer pretend to be mighty mouse either, and here I was hoping to save the day!!! Dog gone it any how!!!

                    I had my heart on being somebody, and to think it's not going to be. I can't take it as this is just to much to take in one day. Please say it isn't so please!!!!

                    I gotta hand it to ya bluewater, I haven't had such a good laugh in I don't know how long. Your the greatest, and I do mean it.

                    DOB!

                    Comment


                    • dob...we arent talking about a computer...we are talking about God...you know, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...what about the adaptation of species to environment...it has happened countless times in the animal kingdom...

                      frederick denison

                      Comment


                      • and continues to happen...(sorry, i should proofread better)

                        Comment


                        • jargon631: If your talking about the diversification in species fine, but I'll asume your talking along lines of altogether completely new species arriving from no new imformation such as that is completely false. DNA cannot develope new information anymore so than my old commadore 64 can. Technically biologically how ever you want to put it it's scientifically impossible.

                          First you must remember the entire story. By that I'm meaning first you have heat, light, and rocks. I have in the past represented this by joking in saying the rubbing of two stones did come life??? Then as to say add in a bunch of exploding valcano's smashing meteorites, not forgetting numerous lightning bolt strikes and toss in couple of comets to boot then walla!! Life??? Some don't think thats very funny, but I do.

                          Now sure enough many believe such fairy tales, but lets not forget their trying to come up with some sort of something to explain life without there being any logic involved.

                          Some might then ask OK smarty pants how did it happen? I scratch my head look them straight in the eye, and say isn't it obvious?? But in their discust of any such thing they raise their eye brows and say you gotta be kidding!!!

                          I'll then say oh it's true just as it's true no lightning bolt struck an abicuss and out popped a commadore 64. Seriously It's just not going to happen, and I don't care if that abicuss were struck for a billion years either!!! Time creates nothing, but only decay.

                          Thermo-dynamics are proven fundamentalls of scientific observations. Higher chemical combinations decay in time, no new elements ever come from decay. You can set an object in motion though it will never asume more energy. As with all things it will eventually decay once abstructed.

                          In one gallon of gasoline there is an exact amount of energy, you'll never get 110% return no matter what. No new energy no new higher forms, these are the fundamentals of thermo-dynamics which are scientificaly proven observations.

                          All these theories are nothing more than the unproven thoughts of men. Some still insist upon their thoughts of billions of years as being the creator of all things. Time it's self has no mental powers of creation. No new ideas are held within time, as time in it's fundamental state is only a perceptions held within the minds of men. Nothing more nothing less thats all it shall ever be is just simply time.

                          DOB!

                          Comment


                          • "All these theories are nothing more than the unproven thoughts of men."

                            So is the theory that a god did it.

                            Comment


                            • Isn't it obvious. And to that I say no I'm not kidding either!

                              Oh now I'm all aware about the supposed pecking order of Darwin beaks. Not forgetting the lizards crawling out of the waters. Toss in a billion years and you then have me!! Sorry I can't swallow it, it just won't go down!! My commador 64 says no compute!!

                              DOB!

                              Comment


                              • Isn't what obvious?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X