Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95536 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you have produced nothing to show that but lies and misinformation. Isn't it sad that that is the best you have. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
What would you like to know about dan?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95537 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Contradictory Trees:
Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95538 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 2

But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”

This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”

Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”

Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”

Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.

That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95539 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Exploding the Big Bang Theory

Originally, the Big Bang Theory was being used to explain the beginning of the universe. Now more and more people are seeing this huge event less as the actual beginning and more as a massive event unto itself. However, many still claim the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and this article is evidence that this is probably a false claim.

This article will not involve any mathematical calculations or anything too difficult to understand. The purpose of this article is to explain in simple language why a "Big Bang" if they do exist, was not the creation of the universe.

First off we must explain the Big Bang Theory and then give the arguments that we will be dispelling.

The theory actually has multiple formations and differences in details depending on who you talk to.(Time frame, speed differences, etc.) However since we will be discussing the overall generalities and not the mathematical details, we won't bother with those differences.

The overall Big Bang theory states that the universe started from an incredibly dense singularity that exploded. All matter, light and energy came from that explosion. The size of the universe increases as everything expands from this explosion. The theory is that of an expanding universe, meaning that the universe as a whole is expanding, instead of a static universe meaning that matter is expanding into a statically sized space. The theory states that the size of the universe is equal to the speed of light (the item furthest away from the explosion as possible) times the age of the explosion. In simpler terms, the light created from the explosion is expanding in equal directions and they represent the edge of the universe.

That's it in a nutshell. Now let's look at the problems with this theory.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95540 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 2

Issue #1: Problem of Size

First we must remember the definition of the term "universe". Basic definitions state: "Everything that exists anywhere", "The whole collection of existing things", "Everything stated or assumed in a given discussion", etc. That means all substance, energy and the space in between.

Regardless of the size of the universe, let's pretend that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Of course it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between the Sun and Earth is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". No one would deny that.

OK, so if the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave is part of the universe, what about a foot ahead? What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory.

Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95541 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 3

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95542 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 4

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95543 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 5

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95544 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 6

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95545 Jul 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradictory Trees:
Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
You still have no idea what this means do you. You are just pasting your spam and acting like a child that believes it has done something wonderful.

Why don't you go the distance and show us what you know.

Are you frightened?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95546 Jul 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 2
But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”
This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”
Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”
Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.
What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”
Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.
That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
I like how it quotes and "evolutionist" and "another evolutionist". Don't they have names?

Keep in mind that the evidence for evolution is not a single piece of evidence and certainly the theory doesn't rest on a single study. The misuse of results being perpetrtated here is not going to bring it down.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95547 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I like how it quotes and "evolutionist" and "another evolutionist". Don't they have names?
Keep in mind that the evidence for evolution is not a single piece of evidence and certainly the theory doesn't rest on a single study. The misuse of results being perpetrtated here is not going to bring it down.
That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.

He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95548 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.
He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.
One of probably many, many I have not heard of. It eplains why this looks like blog droppings.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95549 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.
He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.
I was trying to track the source of the cut and paste. These things sprout like weeds out of nowhere. You would think that the authors would be proud to be recognized for their work. I always hope that the person posting such would have the integrity and seriousness to provide a proper citation. My expectations are rarely met.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95550 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I was trying to track the source of the cut and paste. These things sprout like weeds out of nowhere. You would think that the authors would be proud to be recognized for their work. I always hope that the person posting such would have the integrity and seriousness to provide a proper citation. My expectations are rarely met.
"Integrity"?

We're both diggin' in the wrong field.

I'm a bit cranky today.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95551 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Integrity"?
We're both diggin' in the wrong field.
I'm a bit cranky today.
Dogen says I am very optimistic.

I am too. Maybe I need a vacation.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95552 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen says I am very optimistic.
I am too. Maybe I need a vacation.
I wanted to go kayaking in the 'Glades today. Didn't manage it.

Perhaps over the weekend.

I'd be happy to show you around.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95553 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I wanted to go kayaking in the 'Glades today. Didn't manage it.
Perhaps over the weekend.
I'd be happy to show you around.
That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.

I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95554 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.
I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.
They're mostly wet.

Oh, and there are some nice outdoor ranges here, too.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95555 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.
I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.
Yup.

As would I.

But not until October.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 10 min Spirit67_ 122
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 17 min --IslandGurL-- 151,046
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 17 min Flower-Child 24,033
why is geno and ferret trolling word woman 21 min ---Word Woman--- 32
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 27 min Roxie Darling 3,775
Is SWEETIE-PIE In Love With GENO? 28 min ---Word Woman--- 7
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 30 min Roxie Darling 6,608
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 59 min CrunchyBacon 8,031
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Mega Monster 23,965

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE