Evolution Sucks!
POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 12 of 20
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.
I agree with you about pushing laws or teachings, but as for keeping it to one's self:
I don't see the problem with believers of a faith, whatever it may be, trying to "spread the word." I just think when it becomes clear someone doesn't want to hear it they should shut up.
I believe you are correct, Chris, and in a later post I softened that statement with some clarification. I was "shooting from the hip" in the above-quoted post, something I should not do to the exclusion of thinking about what I'm about to spit out. Sometimes my personal experience with religious zealots leaves its mark in the form of angry retorts.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant
Not under relativity it isn't. c is a constant. It is 299,792,458m/s. c is the natural speed of light in a vacuum which is constant.
Quote:
According to standard modern physical theory, all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, propagates (or moves) at a constant speed in a vacuum, commonly known as the speed of light, which is a physical constant denoted as c. This speed c is also the speed of the propagation of gravity in the theory of general relativity.
One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light source (although the colour, frequency, energy, and momentum of the light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect). If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light. Because of this, one can view c as a fundamental physical constant. This fact can then be used as a basis for the theory of special relativity. It is worth noting that it is the constant speed c, rather than light itself, which is fundamental to special relativity; thus if light is somehow manipulated to travel at more or less than c, this will not directly affect the theory of special relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Quote:
which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so.
We don't know any such thing.
Quote:
Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.
e=mc2 shows that energy can be converted in to particles and vice versa. Frankly Steven Hawking among all of the worlds leading physicist subscribe to singularities and mostly to the big bang. The math is from the same theories that have been proven experimentally.
There's no theory (i.e. one backed up by math or experimental evidence) for the universe being inside a black hole. The properties of black holes can be explained through singularity, there are, however, flaws in the assumption that matter is spinning around a central point.
Quote:
The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.
The big bang theory is actually quite solid. The conditions have been mapped backwards to within a few tenths of a second after the event. Computer models based on the Big Bang theory have produced remarkably similar universes to the one we have today.
You state this like fact but it is an entirely unsupported theory...
It's not unlike saying Evolution doesn't exist so ID must be the answer...
Edit:
The theory of black holes arose from the idea that the speed of light has a maximum speed (it's speed in a vacuum) and that matter can be crushed into a singularity.
It's a consequence of that and relativity.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
http://www.twisted-imaginings.com/S
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The trouble with Intelligent Design is that you have to assume that God is a lousy engineer; otherwise why would humans still have an appendix, vestigial tailbone, or a gall bladder?
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.
The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event. The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.
The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.
First. Here's the thing about black holes, which never approach singularity: They pull in the fabric of space time like a big knot, and that make the space time within the hole to be of greater density, thus the hole is dimensionally transcendental. Space is created by the fabric, from the point of view of anyone inside the space, the amount of space taken up by the fabric of space time is going to be relatively constant, regardless of how it might look to an outside observer. The fabric does not exist *in* space, space exists *in* the fabric. Thus, inside a black hole, by necssity is larger than it appears from the outside. I feel confident that it *must* be so, given what we know about the nature of space-time.
Second. Anything which falls into a black hole does so with some undetermined amount of tangential velocity. Everything we know about physics also tells us this *must* be so and is *always* the case. Since nothing anywhere in physics indicates that anything would ever cancel out this tangential velocity, it must be so that the progression towards the center would follow the same sort as that towards any other gravitating object, and thus miss the exact center. Since the center is infinitely small, this also *must* be so, and thus the falling particles would fall into perpetual orbit of the non-existant center, must the way a whirlpool orbits a space with no water, or an intense storm orbits a space with no wind.
Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.
Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.
Fifth. The gravitational field of a black hole exhibits behavior akin to that of a gravitating object with spin, much like would be created by a field of orbiting material, and not that which would be created by a quantum particle.
Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.
The whole nature of concepts such as speed, distance, and space, are nothing more than relative to the extant quantity of spacial fabric crossed, which is what allows some items to be conceivably capable of moving as what appears to be faster than light to us, but that most probably occurs because of an absense of space.
The so called 'doppler shift' that we view is quite possibly not a 'doppler shift' at all, but the biofringent distortion if that's the right term, cause by looking through spa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
I'm a scientist and I'm trying to keep an open mind. Everything I read about either Creationism or Intelligent Design is usually all about perceived problems with evolution, with very little support for ID. The absence of information about the theory of Intelligent Design has left me with some questions.
I'm not sure which sites you ahve dealt with, have you visited the Discovery Institute? BTW, what field of science are you in?
Quote:
1) What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism (assuming there is one)?
There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.
Quote:
inconsistent with evolution, why would supporters of Intelligent Design be so anti-evolution?
Because most came out of supporting evolution when for various reasons, they came to see it for what it is, myth.
Quote:
2) What is the evidence in support of Intelligent Design?
There are many, one are irreducible compex systems.
Quote:
3) What do Intelligent Design scientists research? ...test your theory you are dealing with philosophy or theology,
Watch out, that is a two edged sword.
Quote:
Intelligent Design cetainly poses all sorts of nice questions (who is the Designer? is there more than one? is creation a single event, or a controlled, interactive scenario? what was the Designer's purpose? where is the Designer now?), but I cannot figure out a way to test a hypothesis based on any of these questions. Do ID scientists perform research seeking incosistencies in evolution? If so, they studying evolution and are in truth evolutionary scientists.
Obviously the answers to these questions cross over into faith and philosophy.
Quote:
My unoriginal inclination is to say Intelligent Design is a transparent attempt to disguise Creationism, and since neither theory can ever be tested, they are not science. But I'm trying to keep that open mind.
Actually, it is more of an attempt to follow the truth in regards to origins, regardless of the final destination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.
Absolutely false statement, just like everything else you've spewed. There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.
That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.
Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.
It is altogether fitting that Hitler writhes in agony in the fires of hell.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.
Yep, that's pretty much it. If you can't accept that, well, tough rocks. It's reality, and as I said before, reality bites sometimes.
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.
Meaningless drivel referencing a "god" which doesn't exist. Please, continue to believe in your make-believe god if it comforts you, but I reserve the right to hold you and your imaginary playmate in contempt--and to do so with impunity, since there's no such thing as any divine retribution for my failure to kiss your god's divine ass.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Bible says something like "By their works you shall know them". So, how do you account for the fact that atheists are generally more moral (lie, cheat, steal, and divorce less) than "believers"?
The Bible also says "All (atheists included) have fallen short of the Glory of God."
Quote:
Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all./QUOTE]
Barna is not the untimate arbiter of who is in and who is out of the flock, as it were.
For the truth on what the founding fathers really said, visit one of my other sites;
www.whateveristrue.com/heritage
True, that Jefferson and Franklin were diests. Too bad.Quote:
Evil Uncle Chuckles (Pat Robertson) calling for various assassinations and Dubya himself are certianly NOT good advertising for religious morality!
Personally I find Pat an embarrasment and not truly representive of true followers of Christ. I think Chavez maybe a little whacky, but I would never advocate his assasination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.
How sad.
I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.
The truth is that Hitler was an avid and devout christian, and a die hard creationist. This is why the accusations made by eurocollectivists that social darwinism eventually led to the holocaust don't hold water. The truth is that social darwinism is a theory about how societies evolve, and the collectivists were afraid that this would ultimately lead people to support the idea of a meritocracy, and so conveniently blamed them for WWII. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people involved in the planning of the Third Reich were social darwinists, and a great number, if not all, were creationists.
As a Taoist, my faith doesn't call for, or perhaps allow, the existance of an omniscient sentient, just living forces in natural progression. If this seems like fringe wackoness to the Xtians, I would offer that my chosen faith has a following comparable to that of Christianity, Islam, Buhddhism and Hinduism. Just saying, not a fringe belief, but also not atheism.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.
That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system
.Quote:
The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event.
It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental. If some group said evolution is proof of God does that suddenly make evolution a belief system?
Quote:
The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.
No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove your black hole theory. None.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.
Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.
Quote:
The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.
You’re flying in the face of a well established and supported theory, DT, you need more than just rhetoric to support your point.
Quote:
Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.
For crying out loud DT, this is not the level of argument I expect from you. By the same reasoning I could say that since the universe exists, and god created the universe that's definite proof that god exists.
Quote:
Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.
As matter is 'sucked' into the blackhole it orbits around before passing through the Event Horizon, producing just the effects you mention.
As for escape velocities above the speed of light, well normal matter can't travel faster than c. A blackhole is black because beyond the Event Horizon nothing can escape without traveling faster than c, and nothing with a finite rest mass can travel faster than c. The radio/x-rays and matter emmissions always come from the accretion disk, outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is less than c.
Light still travels in a straight line inside a blackhole though, it's just space-time is curved in on itself so that light traveling in a straight line always ends up back at the singularity.
Quote:
Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.
DT, I don't want to be overly patroni
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME