19 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
You must have something in the nothingness of space to use as a reference in order to define a point in space. Without something in space there is no reference to use in defining your point. Therefore, you can not define a center to space unless something is put in the nothingness of space by God. So it is only the Creator that can determines the center of the nothingness of space by creating something in it.
The Instructor
You must have something in the nothingness of space to use as a reference in order to define a point in space. Without something in space there is no reference to use in defining your point.
At least in purely practical terms, yes. By the way, how do you know that space is full of 'nothingness'? Do do know that the vacuum of space is 'something', right? and that, thanks to quantum mechanics, it is seething with virtual photons and thus is never truly 'empty', right? We have evidence of all this!
THEREFORE, you can not define a center to space unless something is put in the nothingness of space by God. (my emphasis)
That makes absolutely no sense. One does NOT logically imply the other. To have a point of origin, why would it logically have to be a 'God' that created something in space rather than natural processes? -answer, no reason why not.
So it is only the Creator that can determines the center of the nothingness of space
hang on, now your are claiming that 'God' has determined a “centre” of space? OK, where did he put this centre of space? How far away is it? In which direction?
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThis is the way I understand it. Before God created anything physical, the infinte space that Issac Newton refers to contained nothing physical. It was empty of any matter. Then God begain His physical creation of the heavens and the earth in this infinite empty space. The point in space that God started to do this would be considered the center point from which He stretched out the heavens. As this stretching occurs then more and more of this empty space becomes occupied by what ever the heavens are made of.You must have something in the nothingness of space to use as a reference in order to define a point in space. Without something in space there is no reference to use in defining your point.
At least in purely practical terms, yes. By the way, how do you know that space is full of 'nothingness'? Do do know that the vacuum of space ce? OK, where did he put this centre of space? How far away is it? In which direction?
Today all the space in our sphere of reference is occupied by some substance that some today call the fabric of space.
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the way I understand it. Before God created anything physical, the infinte space that Issac Newton refers to contained nothing physical. It was empty of any matter. Then God begain His physical creation of the heavens and the earth in this infinite empty space. The point in space that God started to do this would be considered the center point f ...[text shortened]... erence is occupied by some substance that some today call the fabric of space.
The Instructor
the infinte space that Issac Newton refers to contained nothing physical
-and we now know that such a space doesn't exists. We know it may not be infinite and it is definitely NOT truly empty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
20 Jun 13
Evidences the world is not as old as evilutionists claim.
Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.
If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons should exist in the top 4,000 meters. Instead, no measurable difference is found.
Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock.
Too little sediment in the ocean since more than 27 billion tons of river sediments enter our oceans each year.
Far fewer than a million years’ worth of metals are dissolved in the oceans.
The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.
Concern that astronauts and equipment would sink into a sea of dust was so great that two missions (Ranger and Surveyor) were sent to the Moon for a closer look. The anticipated problem, which turned out not to exist, arose from the belief that the Moon is billions of years old. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon do not support an old Moon.
comets and the solar system appear to be less than 10,000 years old.
Planets have not existed long enough to cool off.
Only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen in the Milky Way.
If redshifts imply velocities (which is most likely), galaxies and quasars have not been moving apart for very long.
The simplest explanation for so many spiral galaxies, including our Milky Way Galaxy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAll of that is just the usual delusional Creationist propaganda crap. We OBVIOUSLY know ts all lies and we just ignore all that crap so I don't know why you keep posting all of that crap. If you want the truth then study REAL science from the REAL science websites and stop just copying and pasting the usual crap from Creationist sites which obviously have no scientific credibility whatsoever.
Evidences the world is not as old as evilutionists claim.
[b]Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.
If the Earth’s crust is just a fraction of the age claimed by evolutionists, measurable differences in the lead content of zircons shou ...[text shortened]... xy, is that they and the universe are much younger than has been assumed.
The Instructor[/b]
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIt has scientific credibility with me, since nobody has proved it ain't so. I consider the evilutionist's stuff as delusional propaganda grap. That 's why I look for real science information from real scientists that are not overly biased by the delusion evilution propaganda.
All of that is just the usual delusional Creationist propaganda crap. We OBVIOUSLY know ts all lies and we just ignore all that crap so I don't know why you keep posting all of that crap. If you want the truth then study REAL science from the REAL science websites and stop just copying and pasting the usual crap from Creationist sites which obviously have no scientific credibility whatsoever.
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
It has scientific credibility with me, since nobody has proved it ain't so. I consider the evilutionist's stuff as delusional propaganda grap. That 's why I look for real science information from real scientists that are not overly biased by the delusion evilution propaganda.
The Instructor
It has scientific credibility with me, since nobody has proved it ain't so
But, by reason, we CAN and sometimes HAVE repeatedly proved it unscientific to you. For some reason, you ignore this. For example, in the other thread you said
“6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" ) actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain. ...”
there is just so much wrong with that assertion that proves it completely unscientific!
OK firstly, lets start with “6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" ) ...” part.
NO! Natural selection is NOT defined as the "survival of the fittest"! This wasn't even a term coined by Darwin!
And, if you are defining a scientific term incorrectly as you did here, then that is most definitely UNscientific!
Plus, for example, natural selection made the male peacock very large DESPITE the fact that this REDUCES the chances of a peacock bird from surviving! So that logically contradicts Natural selection being “survival of the fittest".
Next:
“Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" ) actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. “
NO! logic says it should cause change and we have physical observable evidence that it DOES cause change.
Next:
“Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability)”
NO! logic says it must be possible for a mutation to increase survivability of the individual and we have physical observable evidence of just such mutations.
I can go through each and every one of your baseless claims and show all of them to be unscientific.
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThese claims are based on what evilutionists in the past have claimed. Now, that that has been proven wrong, they are slithering like a snake to claim that is not it at all what they said and lie to cover up the first lie.It has scientific credibility with me, since nobody has proved it ain't so
But, by reason, we CAN and sometimes HAVE repeatedly proved it unscientific to you. For some reason, you ignore this. For example, in the other thread you said
“6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" ) actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not ...[text shortened]... h each and every one of your baseless claims and show all of them to be unscientific.
So now you admit that natural selection only causes varieties within a species, which we creationists have never argued against in the first place. So at least we are making some progress in eliminating the lies of the evilutionists.
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
These claims are based on what evilutionists in the past have claimed. Now, that that has been proven wrong, they are slithering like a snake to claim that is not it at all what they said and lie to cover up the first lie.
So now you admit that natural selection only causes varieties within a species, which we creationists have never argued against in th ...[text shortened]... east we are making some progress in eliminating the lies of the evilutionists.
The Instructor
These claims are based on what evilutionists in the past have claimed.
NO. It is based on the definition of natural selection and the known physical evidence.
So now you admit that natural selection ONLY causes varieties within a species, (my emphasis)
NO, I have never ever said nor implied this in any way whatsoever. Where in my post did I indicate this and exactly how so?
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyWell, what exactly are you admitting then. And please don't do the slithing snake bit.These claims are based on what evilutionists in the past have claimed.
NO. It is based on the definition of natural selection and the known physical evidence.So now you admit that natural selection ONLY causes varieties within a species, (my emphasis)
NO, I have never ever said nor implied this in any way whatsoever. Where in my post did I indicate this and exactly how so?
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, what exactly are you admitting then. And please don't do the slithing snake bit.
The Instructor
Well, what exactly are you admitting then
what are you talking about? I didn't say/imply I was “admitting” to anything!
Are you hallucinating words I didn't say or what!?
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYou said, "Plus, for example, natural selection made the male peacock very large DESPITE the fact that this REDUCES the chances of a peacock bird from surviving!"
quote what I said that you claim says/implies I am admitting to something.....
If you cannot, then you are just making this up.
So that implies you believe natural selection refers to changes within species like size, color, and the like. Isn't that what you are admitting?
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSaying that natural selection can select for some treat that does not favor individual survival does NOT imply the ridiculously simplistic and erroneous assertion that "natural selection refers to changes within species like size, color, and the like.". Therefore, I am clearly not "admitting" to any such thing.
You said, "Plus, for example, natural selection made the male peacock very large DESPITE the fact that this REDUCES the chances of a peacock bird from surviving!"
So that implies you believe natural selection refers to changes within species like size, color, and the like. Isn't that what you are admitting?
The Instructor
You said that natural selection is about "survival of the fittest" which is, at best, massively over simplistic and highly misleading and, at worst, completely false for the reason I just stated there.
I Have already clearly stated what Natural selection is:
Natural selection is the process in nature by which the habitat of a population of a species favors some innate inheritable treats that are in some but not all individuals because those innate treats make those individuals better adapted to their habitat and, as a result, those individuals with those treats will tend to both survive and reproduce in greater numbers than those individuals that do not have those treats thus tending to result in an increasing the proportion of the population that has those traits in succeeding generations and this may eventually lead to the whole population having those treats.
Similarly, natural selection is also the process by which the habitat of a population of a species disfavors those individuals that have innate inheritable treats that make them less adapted to both survive and reproduce and thus this tends to result in a decrease in the proportion of the population that has those traits in succeeding generations and thus these disfavored treats tend to be weeded out of the population by the process.
Note that there is no mention of "the survival of the fittest" there and that slogan is not implied.