IRYW

Malvern, PA

#22 Jul 4, 2012
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is precisely why I previously said "Creationists and/or (Un)Intelligent Designers don't like the answers." It's really a waste of time answering the same old questions when their purpose is to substitute a "God Did It" fallacy into answers that don't fit into their preconceived, pseudo-scientific, biblical based non-theories.
Agreed that the diehard fundies are not going to listen. I post the answers for other readers, who may see a lack of response as capitulation.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#23 Jul 4, 2012
1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (By AronRa)

AronRa rants against a primary falsehood of the creationism movement; the idea that evolution = atheism, or that Creationism = Christianity.

&fe ature=related

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#24 Jul 4, 2012
2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Exploring the erroneous notion that the holy scriptures were written by God, rather than be subject to the errs of humanity

&fe ature=related

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#25 Jul 4, 2012
3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism By AronRa

Exploring the notion of absolute truth and how revealing that would actually (be) more of a fallacy than regular truth.

&fe ature=related

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#26 Jul 4, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed that the diehard fundies are not going to listen. I post the answers for other readers, who may see a lack of response as capitulation.
I do that to, it hard but worth it.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#27 Jul 4, 2012
4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

"My attempt to explain empirical inquiry as a rational alternative to the false propaganda propagated on faith."

&fe ature=related

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#28 Jul 4, 2012
5th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Disputing the weary canard that evolution is a religion, and therefore somehow equal to creationism.

&fe ature=related

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#29 Jul 4, 2012
6th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism by AronRa

Taking on common Creationist canards relating to what evolution is and isn't, and what it does or doesn't depend on or relate to.

&fe ature=related

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#30 Jul 4, 2012
7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

This one deals with the notion that everything must have an intelligently-designed purpose, or it must be random accidents.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#31 Jul 4, 2012
8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

This one deals with mutations and "information".

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#32 Jul 4, 2012
9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Listing just a handful of the myriad transitional species we've found, and that creationists insist do not exist or somehow still don't count.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#33 Jul 4, 2012
10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

An abreviated introductory primer to cladistic phylogenetics, the most compelling and overwhelming evidence of evolution and our place in nature.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#34 Jul 4, 2012
11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Exposing the lies of creationists trying to deny whether we've ever observed the evolution of new species.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#35 Jul 4, 2012
12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Evaluating intelligent design creation science and their opposition to material science or methodological naturalism.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#36 Jul 4, 2012
13th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Every "evolutionist hoax" ever alleged was either fabricated or misrepresented to such a degree that each contributes to a growing list of creationist frauds.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#37 Jul 4, 2012
14th foundational falsehood of creationism Pt 1

The 1st of two-part tirade about creationists' claims of having evidence, when all they really have are baseless assertions and assumed conclusions supported only by frauds and fallacies.



14th foundational falsehood of creationism pt 2

The 2nd half of a two-part tirade about creationists' claims of having evidence, when all they really have are baseless assertions and assumed conclusions supported only by frauds and fallacies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
KJV

Brooklyn, NY

#38 Jul 4, 2012
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
Dark matter KJV it was the first observed by Jan Oort in 1932, he noted that the stars in the motorway had more mass than to be observed, there had to be there were moving too fast, of their observed weights. Then came Fritz Zwicky a year later, he observed that Coma galactic cluster was moving too fast for it’s observe weight, 400 times more mass it would require for its outer galaxies moving about speed, so he proposed dark matter. In fact most will we know about dark matter comes from similar observations.
In the 1970s the invention of more sensitive spectrographs allowed astronomers to measure, velocity curves at higher accuracies than before they found that most stores in galaxies orbited about the same speed, eventually we found that the ratio between known and dark matter in most galaxies is once 10.
Also dark matter is necessary to explain galactic clusters, I actually watched a simulation at a universe of day with dark matter in the simulated universe and found that, for galaxy clusters be formed on time as it were dark matter with necessary, galactic clusters would still be in their early stages without dark matter, so what is it we don't know and there's the annoying part don't even know what we're looking for, all we pretty much know is galaxies move faster than they should be, and galaxy clusters could not have formed as they are now without dark matter.
Oh by the way dark matter is the cause of the acceleration in expansion of the universe to, the force it generates actually overcomes gravity which is fairly weak.
Uranus and the other backward rotating planets are most likely turning that way, due to large meteorites or planetoids, which isn't actually that outside the box our axis of rotation was caused by planetoid, and Uranus and Venus have a large inclination on they rotating axis.
Could you name the galaxy that is going the wrong way? Maybe then you'll stop relying on me to get your science and do your own research.
You've done no research for me. You may have had to try and scratch stuff up to try and refute me. but you do not provide me with valuable data.

As to your question:

Scientists believe that on large scales the Universe is isotropic (the same in all directions). Thus, from our perspective, half of all spiral galaxies should spin clockwise, and half counter-clockwise. A recent analysis of the spin of spiral galaxies confirms this. The public classified over 35,000 spiral galaxies with spins both clockwise and counter-clockwise in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as part of the Galaxy Zoo ( http://www.galaxyzoo.org/ ) project. Scientists published the results in a recent paper ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3247 ) and found that the Universe is indeed isotropic - we see the same number of clockwise as counter-clockwise spirals (within the uncertainties).

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#39 Jul 4, 2012
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Pt 1

The first of a two-part final installment to this series, explaining what the words, hypothesis, fact, law, and Theory actually are, rather than what creationists want us to think they are. Hint: a scientific theory isn't a guess, but an explanative study of real phenomenon.



15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism pt 2

The second of a two-part explanation of how a scientific theory differs from the uncertain speculation which creationists would like to believe it is. Although this is the final installment to this series, the playlist will also include a sort of epilogue episode which isn't a necessarily 'foundational falsehood' but is still relevant to the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#40 Jul 4, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. "
1. Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
2.Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
3. Where did life originally come from if it can not appear spontaneously?
4. Which came first? Male or Female?
5. Why do we find petrified trees standing up through supposedly “millions” of years worth of geological layers?
6. What were the first elements to be formed?
7. When and how did the stars come to be?
8. When did the laws of nature(i.e. Gravity) first come into effect?
9. Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
10. How did the universe start(please provide specified details)?
"Those are the ten questions, I hope you find time to attempt to answer them."
Start with Posts #23 to #39, then read some real science books in the various fields of science.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Long Eaton, UK

#41 Jul 5, 2012
I didnt have to scratch stuff up KJV what I told you is basic knowledge, of the history of dark matter in the scientific field. You can get such knowledge by a Google search, and looking at the sources cited by Wikipedia, if you just bothered to check what people tell you like I, we wouldn't be here talking about this, and you wouldn't be asking a for valuable data you would have had it already, besides that's just enough to refute what you said, you want significant data go do a physics course, you'll even get the calculations to get the data yourself, you won't be able to understand the data if you don't..
As for you answering my question, you haven't in fact you change your claim, it was There are also major galaxy spinning the wrong way, now it is from our perspective, half of all spiral galaxies should spin clockwise, and half counter-clockwise, I asked you to tell me the name of the major galaxy going backwards, now you give me a source showing this is what astronomers expected. You can do the research, you have answered your original implied question, now do it for everything else your creationist Priests ask. Here's a tip, before investigating a subject, learn the definitions of that subject.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min NoahLovesU 239,174
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Eagle 12 7,407
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr MikeF 19,043
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 11 hr Thinking 31
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr Thinking 2,179
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 22 hr NoahLovesU 7,468
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 22 hr thetruth 115
More from around the web