So true it makes you wonder if the crows will actually outpace us in intelligence :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
The planet is playing to the lowest common denominator here, us.
Printable View
So true it makes you wonder if the crows will actually outpace us in intelligence :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
The planet is playing to the lowest common denominator here, us.
Oh great yet another bs forecast to add to the long list of dud forecasts.
0% strike rate and on it goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaJust looking at the first one:Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Such utter rubbish. None of the leading theories have problems - they just have unanswered questions, more of which get answered as time goes by.Quote:
Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning.
How the Moon Formed: Violent Cosmic Crash Theory Gets Double Boost
He gets even worse at the second:
Frankly the author is clearly neither a reservoir engineer nor a geologist. But he doesn't appear to know it. The earth's crust is constantly on the move - that's why we have earthquakes, and it's how most oil reservoirs were formed.Quote:
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left
And different types of rock have different levels of porosity and permeability. Has the gibbering fool never heard of oil shale?
I can't be bothered reading the rest of this bloody gibberish because it's fairly obvious that its all going to be that bad.
If you believe any of that nonsense, I have a nice bridge to sell you.
Those who hail evolution as a “fact” are either ignorant of the facts, or lying about them. The fact is that scientists have only been able to create 13 of the 20 amino acids that make up proteins. And even these (almost always) consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids. This is about as far from making a living organism as a piece of silver is from a computer (with monitor, printer, and electricity) running on a well-designed, and redesigned (or improved) program like Windows XP or 7.. For even the most "simple," self-replicating, bacterium contains many thousands of protein molecules, of 600 different types, that consist of left-handed (only) amino acids -- each of which is connected in just the right order, like words and sentences, while the most basic protein molecule (only 8 amino acids long) has never been observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from pre-existing cell machinery and the stored information in DNA).
The most basic self-replicating bacterium is called Mycoplasma.. It consists of at least 40,000 proteins of 600 different types, has 482 genes, and can't survive on its own but requires the aid of a more complex host organism.
To suppose that one of these extremely complex creatures came into being by itself (over Billions of years) is an unsubstantiated speculation of the highest order and is NOT based on empirical (i.e. observed) science, but rather upon a blind faith in the power of (unintelligent) matter to somehow organize itself by time and chance, while overcoming the destructive forces of nature such as heat and cold, oxidation, hydrolysis, and numerous toxic chemicals.
For example, is there reason to expect that a Creative bolt of Lightning, or "Ocean Bubble" could produce a half-way-formed "pre-mycoplasmic" organic blob of cells, that would, in Billion or Trillions of years, make itself more and more complex, to the point where it could maintain and Reproduce itself ? Or would such a (hypothetical) halfway formed blob of chemicals simply decay and degrade via natural processes? Keep in mind that for it to "select" a benefit, it would first need to be able to reproduce itself -- which it can't -- and the thing "selected" would need to convey some sort of benefit. And without an overriding Intelligence to oversee it, or without pre-programmed "target," it has no ability to 'select' for anything because it isn't alive, has no brain, and is blind to everything around it.
Like it or not, the facts of science declare that such an imaginary "pre-creature" would not complete this process on its own, but would instead merely decay back into the unintelligent matter from which it came. In other words, a belief in evolution is based much more on (blind) faith, as opposed to scientifically observed facts; however this is NOT what our children are being taught in public schools, but rather instead are being brainwashed to believe something that (most certainly) can't be true: thanks to the Media and the Democratic Party -- who for many years have endorsed and/or propped up the collapsing theory of evolution, and falsely label it "science" -- as opposed to exposing it for the blind-faith religion or theory-based belief that it is.
But, for the sake of those interested, lets look more closely at the inner workings of the cell. For example, living organisms possess a molecule called Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (or DNA). This molecule contains the information needed to make a specific life-form, and which enables it to maintain and repair itself. The DNA molecule is mysteriously broken down into genes. One DNA molecule may have thousands of different genes or protein blueprints. These genes are (relatively) small portions of chemically coded information that are used to make proteins. The DNA cannot "decode" itself, but requires the aid of numerous proteins (that also don't form naturally) to do so. If a DNA molecule were compared to a book, then its genes would be the equivalent to individual (long) words or sentences of that book, and the DNA equivalent to the Book itself, but a living organism is even more complicated than that since it can actually reproduce itself, and because ....
The DNA in living organisms makes molecular machinery (as in complex molecules called polymerase and helicase) that enables it to copy its information. For example, when a DNA molecule copies one of its genes, the copy is called RNA. This RNA molecule then leaves the DNA and travels to the ribosome, where the information is re-read and translated from a 4-letter (DNA/RNA) code to a 20-letter amino-acid / protein code. This complex molecule then must be folded into the correct shape in order for it to become a useful protein. The RNA molecule is a small mobile copy of DNA. Ribosomes are tiny protein factories that take the information from the RNA and use it to make homochiralic proteins from L-type amino acids. Proteins are not known to form naturally in slime-pools, oceans, or laboratories, but rather are only made by living organisms.
Living cells are also quite fragile and require a protective membrane to enclose them and to keep harmful substances out. If they get too hot or too cold they will die. If there isn't enough oxygen, or if there is too little, or too much of certain elements or substances they will also cease to function. In fact, even water itself must not be allowed to come inside the cell membrane without being strictly regulated: the same goes for all other elements.
In other words, life is fragile. It is also loaded with information, or like a highly ordered and complex program (or book) that is hundreds to thousands of pages long and so far nature, on its own, can't even write a single line of that book. The popular theory of evolution proposes that the book of life -- with all of its twists and turns and complexity -- wrote itself, without the aid of an intelligence. Just as amazing, if not more so, is that there are still many University Professors and scientists who have Great Faith in the mysterious power of Nature to create such complex things as living organisms that they can't duplicate.
Some bacteria even have microscopic motors that they use to propel themselves forward or backward. Did they also "evolve" by themselves?
See also:
Is Water the Solution?
Life, DNA, and Proteins
Response to Comments above
How Life Began by Thomas F. Heinze
Which is more Scientific Creation or Evolution?
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible, by Dr. Jerry Bergman,
Nice cut 'n paste but it's called the Theory of Evolution and this is a thread about climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
So what's your point?
My point is most of you non young earth believers talk about science supporting Evolution, when actually no science can absolutely support Evolution, open your eyes. I have heard over and over how a young earth believer has to ignore science when the links and this post are evidence that Evolutionists such as your self have to ignore science.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Yes this is a thread about climate change but if you and others continue to degrade my posting because I am a creationist, continue to claim my posts are not credible buy saying I pay no attention to science I will continue to defend my self regardless the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Science does support evolution, and that's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
I really don't think that you understand science as a concept or discipline. It's about testing and proving (or disproving, as the case may be) theories and arriving at the best possible conclusion using all the available evidence.
You keep leveling the charge that others are ignoring certain 'scientific evidence' but what you are in fact doing is cherry-picking yourself - actively seeking out 'evidence' that supports your preconceived notions, what you want to believe, and ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that doesn't. That's not science.
Says it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
That's a pretty vague statement perhaps you would like to be a little more specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
And that is exactly what you are doing, refusing to consider all the scientific evidence, choosing only to look at what supports your theory. The next point I would make ,as you you say and I agree science is a concept of testing and prove now we come to the problem that no one was present when your supposed evolution started therefore there can be no starting point for scientific research of evolution it is all only supposition.
Have you ever read the mathematical probability of evolution and if so what do you think about the odds?
Because you do and are ignoring science and therefore your opinions on matters of science are irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
A scientist falls into a lake and gets wet. He thinks: 'hmmm, maybe water is wet?' so sets up a series of experiments to test this theory, discovers that water is, in fact, wet so shares his findings with other scientists who also test the theory to see if they can achieve the same results. They do, the scientific community concludes that water is officially wet.
You come along and say 'no it isn't, because Jesus walked on water', Google some 'evidence' from others that believe that same as you, try to claim there is controversy where there is none, and then start going on about how it's actually others ignoring evidence. In the meantime water is still wet.
No, I havn't come along and said anything about Jesus concerning science for or against evolution I have however posted facts that dispute the science of evolution which obviously you choose to either not read or ignore. Now in my last cut and paste please tell me at what points you disagree, this business of you constantly bringing in your opinion about Jesus or Christianity where I am posting facts and opinions based on science is not cutting it, it is about as effective as you questioning your mother and her reply would be, because I said so, which I bring into show your posts have no facts only your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
...Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Yeah, you kinda have actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
"A scientist falls into a lake and gets wet. He thinks: 'hmmm, maybe water is wet?' so sets up a series of experiments to test this theory, discovers that water is, in fact, wet so shares his findings with other scientists who also test the theory to see if they can achieve the same results. They do, the scientific community concludes that water is officially wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
You come along and say 'no it isn't, because Jesus walked on water', Google some 'evidence' from others that believe that same as you, try to claim there is controversy where there is none, and then start going on about how it's actually others ignoring evidence. In the meantime water is still wet."
You don't understand science as a concept or discipline. Googled contrary opinions isn't 'scientific evidence' and they aren't "facts".
Again, this is a thread about climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
If you want to discuss evolution then by all means start a thread on that and I'd be happy to do so there.
Just a heads up though: you'll need to do better than expecting me to refute everything you cut 'n paste.
Do you think that posting reams of bullshit that you don't understand will somehow prove a point? If so, you appear to have learned the Boon Mee approach to "trying to win an argument".Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
The Theory of Evolution has masses of empirical scientific evidence supporting it.
What you seem to be talking about is the *Origin* of life, which is not fully understood, and it has more to do with nucleic acids than amino acids.
There are a number of theories that can be considered.
However, you seem unable to accept that it is an unanswered question, yet you seem to consider not having an answer to "Who created God?" to be perfectly acceptable.
Rather silly logic if you ask me. Discard empirical scientific evidence and instead believe the word of a long-dead, uneducated semite who may or may not have heard a story first hand.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, this is actually irrelevant to the topic at hand, so please open another thread if you want to discuss Jesus Wheezer creationist nonsense vs Science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Just a heads up I will continue to defend my self if you and others like you continue to challenge my posts by brining up the fact that I am Christian. I would never expect you to refute what I cut and paste as I have yet to see you post anything and back it up with science.
When you disregard my posts by saying I do not believe in science I will continue to defend my self with scientific facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaDo you think that posting reams of bullshit that you don't understand will somehow prove a point? If so, you appear to have learned the Boon Mee approach to "trying to win an argument".Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
The Theory of Evolution has masses of empirical scientific evidence supporting it.
What you seem to be talking about is the *Origin* of life, which is not fully understood, and it has more to do with nucleic acids than amino acids.
There are a number of theories that can be considered.
However, you seem unable to accept that it is an unanswered question, yet you seem to consider not having an answer to "Who created God?" to be perfectly acceptable.
Rather silly logic if you ask me. Discard empirical scientific evidence and instead believe the word of a long-dead, uneducated semite who may or may not have heard a story first hand.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, this is actually irrelevant to the topic at hand, so please open another thread if you want to discuss Jesus Wheezer creationist nonsense vs Science.
Do what you feel you must, the whole playing the part of the persecuted Christian thing is pretty lame though. Lame but not unexpected.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
I actually have no issue with your religious beliefs. It's more your misguided and egregious grasp of 'facts' and that you very clearly don't know or understand what science is and continually try to superimpose your religious beliefs in place of objective fact and evidence and then accuse others of ignoring evidence.
116 pages producing co2. Hundreds of hypocrites flying to Paris.
The Co2 alarmism really is a parody of itself.
Let us know when you actually start doing that, won't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Because so far you're doing a shit job of it.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
I am not playing the part of a persecuted I, in fact at this point you can leave religion completely out of the discussion, what I have posted are scientific facts as related to evolution or creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
But you continually neglect to refute the scientific facts that I have presented how then can you state I have no idea what science is. You on the other hand site no scientific facts at all you speak of science with no back up.
Other stating that I am a Christian and believe in a young earth where have I superimposed my religious beliefs in place of science.
Don't show me an advertisement about glasses show me the proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neohttps://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Can you show fallacy in my last cut and paste or will you just continue to run your mouth while saying nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaLet us know when you actually start doing that, won't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Because so far you're doing a shit job of it.
What you have posted is not scientific fact because it is contrary to accepted science. I can just as easily Google and cut 'n paste 'scientific facts' that the earth is flat or that immunizations cause ADD. You can Google up 'facts' to support pretty much any wackjob theory. It doesn't mean that they are true.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
So what part are you failing to understand: the "science" or the "fact" part. Because you're demonstrating a remarkable lack of understanding of both.
Being a Christian and being a scientist (or just understanding the concept) aren't mutually exclusive but to be or understand the former you still need to have an objective understanding of the processes of science. You don't.