Creationism is a mental illness (Page 209) zeffur: The earth orbiting the sun is proven. Evolution is 100% unproven & it has ZERO compelling/convincing unbiased evidence to substantiate it's absurd beliefs are valid/true in ANY way at all... Comparing apples to shoe leather doesn't produce any truth... You still have no truth to offer... (Edited by zeffur)  BelgianStrider:  Again it has not been proven the Earth is orbiting the Sun. For getting proof of that you need to go out of our planetary system and look at it for almost one year. (did not happen yet in my humble opinion). Though clear evidences make that heliocentric model more valid, compared to a geocentrric model. Again, he refutes to accept that in natural science there are no proofs but evidences. Again he shows his total aversion to science. Concerning "the truth": he just wants to impose "HIS truth" (even if that book is full of contradictions and horrible events) (Edited by BelgianStrider) zeffur: The only contradictions are those that you falsely imagine. There is proof that the earth orbits the sun... We have high precision scientific instruments in deep earth orbits that can measure the movement of the earth with respect to the sun. Believe whatever rubbish that you wish. I'm not going to school you about anything as you are just a nitwit troll that will disagree with everything... (Edited by zeffur) zeffur: Btw, Voyager 1 & 2 have both left our solar system apparently. "Voyager 1 transitioned into interstellar space in 2012." "Voyager 2 – launched in August 1977, flew past Jupiter in 1979, Saturn in 1981, Uranus in 1986, and Neptune in 1989. The probe left the heliosphere for interstellar space at 119 AU on 5 November 2018. Voyager 2 is still active." You also don't have to leave the solar system to precisely measure earth's orbit around the sun... zeffur: A response to: 1. So, a 'scientific' theory is not really 'just a theory', huh? Bahaha. Of course it is. It's nothing but biased & bogus beliefs for atheists & nitwits to believe in that has ZERO proof & NO compelling/convincing unbiased evidence that can substantiate it's absurd beliefs... Comparing it to other 'theories' doesn't give it any credibility at all--it's not real science because it is NOT observable, not testable, not verifiable fact in ANY way whatsoever... There is NO evidence that nature has any intelligence to produce genetic code. All codes require intelligence to be created & interpreted & science has ZERO proof or any credible evidence that it does have such a capability--hence, life/DNA cannot originate itself from nothing--there must logically have been an intelligent agent/s to originate life/DNA. Yeah yeah...we're tired of the trope that evolution doesn't address origin of life--because it can't do so--because doing so shows science has NO sound basis at all from which to postulate it's absurd & indefensible 'beliefs' about life on earth. You also can't falsely use comparative anatomy to mislead people anymore with your false beliefs. We know that breeding dogs leads to all manner of physical differences--but in the end they are ALL the SAME SPECIES--hence comparative anatomy is NOT a reliable methodology to mislead people about evolution (yet it & misleading drawings have been used from the beginning to dupe uneducated people into believing in the con that is evolution--which is rather deceptive & pathetic to try to promote a false naturalistic/materialistic ideology without any sound basis whatsoever). Conflating extinct chip-like creatures with cherry-picked fossils is not proof of evolution--it's proof of an organized effort to deceive the masses to continue evolution graft of taxpayers... 2. Pretending the argument against evolution just doesn't 'understand' what evolution is--is not proof of any kind that evolution has EVER actually occurred. You haven't disproven his point & you have not proven or shown your absurd imaginary beliefs are true. You essentially made noise & pretended you've eliminate a valid argument against evolution, but you have not eliminated a valid argument against evolution. For evolution to be valid IT MUST introduce new genetic code--which you have ZERO proof has ever occurred. If you disagree, show us the series of genetic mutations from your hypothetical microbe (which has never been proven to have existed or exist today) to mankind. The FACT is that you have ZERO verifiable facts to show such a series of mutations has ever occurred. You only 'belief/assume' that they exist--that isn't science---that is an example of blind faith in your religion of irrationism/atheism/naturalism/materialism. P.s.: your example of an iguana's top of their head sensor doesn't prove it evolved at all. It just proves such a creature has such a feature. There is no rhyme or reason why that creature would 'evolve' such a feature & other creatures would not. Humans could certainly benefit from having such a sensor on top of or on the back of their heads--yet presto-whammo evolution hasn't come to our benefit. The deceptive tactic of pretending that a unique feature of ANY organism just 'evolve' without a shred of proof of evolution has been going since the false belief of evolution has been introduced. There is ZERO credible basis in fact or in reality that proves such feature have EVER 'evolved'--which is nothing but an imaginary belief without any sound basis in fact. The half a wing/eye argument against evolution makes perfect sense when compared to your 'imaginary & indefensible 'functional steps' development belief--which of course has ZERO sound scientific factual basis. Lol @ 'exaptation'--what a complete crock of imaginary crapola. Where is the PROOF or unbiased evidence with a cogent explanation that that has EVER happened?? You people just keep on making up pure fiction to try to keep your con going.... just incredible. Not having a muscle or a tendon within some of the population isn't evidence of vestigial features--it is just an example of the wide variations that are possible within a genome. You have absolutely NO valid position to suggest that it is being phased out of genome--that absurd belief is again, without ANY sound basis whatsoever--it's pure belief only. The vestigial features that you say are "unuseful' are just an argument from ignorance--just as they were for all of the other vestigial features that your absurd believers once claimed were useless but have not been proven to be useful...You're just wrong & continue to be wrong in your assumptive & false beliefs... 3. Homology is just another subjective con job just like comparative anatomy is an evolution con job to deceive uneducated people. Cows & humans have eyes & heads, but that doesn't mean we evolved from the other or any 'unproven common ancestor'... That's just another imaginary & indefensible evo chump belief. The ancestors of whales were NOT land animals as you try to deceptively purport. The ancestors of whales were only whales & you cannot PROVE otherwise. Your misinterpretation of the fossils & creative drawing to mislead people to 'believe' as you do, isn't science--it is a con job without ANY sound basis at all. There are ZERO credible transitional fossils. There should literally be millions of them in order to get from a microbe to a man or a whale or anything else that is falsely purported to be true by evo chumps, but there is in FACT ZERO incontrovertible transitional fossils. There are only biased & bogus beliefs in 'some' fossils--which of course the have to have or their who lie would collapse in their face--which is exactly what should happen to the absurd theory of evolution--it is complete rubbish from every perspective & certainly not sound science in any way at all. The atheists & other nitwits have just infiltrated the sciences to keep the con going... 4. Evolutioners are distancing themselves from the fossil record towards: "the observed evolution of species" (which is purely subjective rubbish), "biogeography" (which again is subjective rubbish), & "the hierarchical structure of taxonomy" (which is again subjective rubbish that PEOPLE have create to draw lines of evolution between species--which have NO actual sound proof or compelling/convincing evidence to substantiate such absurd beliefs are valid/true". That's exactly what they want--totally subject rubbish that their cadre of atheist & nitwits can assert without any credible basis is valid/true. Just incredible that anyone with even a fraction of critical thinking skills wouldn't immediately dismiss as complete & utter rubbish without any sound basis whatsoever... I could go on, but what's the point? Evolution is without ANY sound basis AT ALL. It is nothing but a myth/fairy tale for atheist & other nitwits to cling to in vain because they reject the fact that nature has NO intelligence & no capability to original life/DNA from non life--which of course logically points to an intelligent agent to originate that life. I fully support defunding ALL evolution rubbish from every level of education & from gutting all of their mass media lies from all airwaves. Let them commiserate with flat earthers & other fringe rubbish. It's WAY past time to stop spending ANY taxpayer $$ on such utter rubbish... BelgianStrider: A nouveau, viens avec des fossiles de kangourous en Turquie ... Pour le reste, les Voyagers n'ont point observé l'orbite de la Terre, mais bien les surfaces des planetes qu'ils ont "frolés". Légère mais importante différence en objectif et méthode d'observation. En d'autres mots tu as fabulé en ce qui concerne les Voyagers et tu n'as aucune notion de leurs "missions" (de ta part, pas étonnant dailleurs). Pour t'informer un peu plus concernant les missions Voyagers: ce sont les lois de Kepler qui ont permis que ces satélites artificièlles ont pu frôler en temps dû et désiré les sufaces des planètes et "lunes" de notre système planétaire. (ah notes: "les lois" ne sont pas "une théorie" et vice versa: c'est aussi expliqué dans cette vidéo) Cela donne un indication immense que le modèle mathémathique du système héliocentrique est bien valide, mais ne donne en aucun cas une "preuve" de la véracité de ce modèle. Encore tu donnes des claires indications que tu n'as aucune notion de ce que tu palabres. Sache aussi que ces engins furent conçus dés le début à quitter notre système planétaire et de se "balader" dans l'univers avec des messages de la Terre.... Pour le reste on connais tous vos arguments complètement anti-scientifique pour nier les évidences présentées ainsi que toutes les indications qui démontrent vos sophismes. "Im Westen nichts Neues". Enfin pour terminer tu démontres à nouveau ton aversion complète envers les sciences. (pas étonnant non plus, car ta scolarité est fort probablement nulle). (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Petite parenthèse: pourquoi est-tu si silencieux des commentaires de ces personnes qui connaissent ton bouquin aussi bien que toi et démontrent des erreurs flagrantes? On peut même dire que cela est aussi le cas dans la phylosophie et l'attitude de ce dieu pardonnant, aimant, miséricorde etc.. (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: En ce qui concernes les messages contenus dans les Voyagers: Voici les 4 grandes possibilités avec probabilité décroissant: Tombe quelque part sans aucune vie -> message perdu Tombe quelque part où il y a une vie pimitive non-conscient - message probablement perdu (une vie intélligente peut en resortir et eventuéllement découvrir le message bien plus tard si il n'est pas "detruit" avec "l'érosion" ). Tombe là où il y a début de conscience et intelligence -> message mal interprété. Ces individus vont considérer cet artefact et message comme objet divine et les vénérer (il est un fait qu'à ce moment "dieu créa l'homme à son image" serait véridique car l'homme est lui même devenu "dieu" ). Dernière possibilité: tombe là ou les sciences et techniques sont bien plus avancées -> message dérisoire. On est considéré come des primitifs incapable de se localiser dans l'univers. Il est vrai et je dois avouer qu'il y a encore multes possibilités entre ces "4 extrèmes" (Edited by BelgianStrider) zeffur: re: "BSr: Again, come with kangaroo fossils to Turkey ..." Keep digging... re: "For the rest, the Voyagers did not observe the orbit of the Earth, but the surfaces of the planets which they "grazed". Slight but important difference in objective and method of observation. In other words you have fabulated about the Voyagers and you have no notion of their "missions" (on your part, not surprisingly)." As usual, you completely missed the point---we have already been far enough away from both solar system bodies to observe their relative movements to each other & with respect to distant stars. You should have enough sense to realize that fact, but apparently you prefer to be a posturing fool rather than a reasonable person... The rest of what you wrote is just as absurd as what I commented on above, so I'm not going to even address it. You're clearly suffering from some kind of psychotic break from reality... (Edited by zeffur) BelgianStrider: Où sont tes références déterminant que les Voyagers ont dû observer les mouvements planètaires par rapport au soleil? Qu'ils sont actuellement dans les régions interstellaire et font des "observations - mesures" interstellaire est un fait indéniable. Néanmoins il n'y a aucune référence concernant l'observation des orbites planetaires. (Edited by BelgianStrider) zeffur: I didn't state that Voyager actually made such measurements. I indicated that we have had spacecraft in deep enough space to observe the relative movements of the relevant solar system objects to discern which of them (sun vs earth) orbits the other. This isn't rocket science. Even a dummy like you should have the minimal mental ability to understand the obvious. The earth is orbiting the sun at over 67 kmph (~30 km/s). That can be measured by any deep space (high altitude craft). Our solar system also orbits our galaxy at ~560k mph (~250 km/s). Anyway, you're just a tedious troll who doesn't know anything worth knowing... Delude on.... BelgianStrider: Donc aucune référence, ni observation, qui puisse donner une "preuve" oculaire. Résultat: on travaille encore avec des "évidences" et non des "preuves" de la théorie heliocentrique. (A vrai dire on n'as point besoin de "preuves", car les évidences sont tellement convainquantes qu'on ne les discute point - à part les "terriens plats", aussi un bande de religieux anti-sciences). Tes chiffres sont juste les résultats de simples calculs émanant des lois de Kepler. Cela ne donne en rien, à part blablater complètement hors propos et ne prouvant rien du tout. Simplement; à confirmer la théorie heliocentrique qui est valide bien au dela du doute raisonnable. "Anyway, you're just a tedious troll who doesn't know anything worth knowing..." Ne généralise pas ton cas. Ce n'est pas la première fois que tu démontres ton incapacité claire de comprende les bases scientifiques. (Edited by BelgianStrider) zeffur: You have no scientific basis nor any truth to offer. As I stated above: "you're just a tedious troll who doesn't know anything worth knowing..." Delude on.... We can actually see the planets mercury & venus orbit around the sun when they are visible to us as they have a shorter orbit times than the earth (i.e. ~88 days, ~225 days, respectively). We can also compute & plot their elliptical orbits with very high accuracy. So yeah, you're just a dummy as usual. (Edited by zeffur)  ghostgeek: Once you've said evolution is "Crap" twenty thousand times over, what do you do next? Say the Bible is "Crap" forty thousand times over and see what's in the fridge. | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
