Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Loudmouth]

A Critique of 29 Evidences for Macroevolution

A critique of the critique:

A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

 

[sfs]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

My faith is in God. My working model of biology is evolution. I'll ask you again: what does the one have to do with the other?

 

[USincognito]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

His faith is in Jesus Christ and I suggest you refresh your familiarity with the forum rules.

 

[SkyWriting]

And how do you propose we actually conduct it?

You proposed the idea.

The event horizon is not a barrier.

Sure.
Since general relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing inside the event horizon can ever cross the boundary and escape beyond it, including light.
The event horizons of compact stellar objects, such as neutron stars, can be viewed as dual gravitational energy barriers...
Event Horizon or Particle Barrier .PDF

Perhaps that's why our reality is actually a 2 dimensional
plane surrounding black holes?

Given that you have demonstrated that you don't even know enough about black holes to know what an event horizon is, I don't see any reason to give even a second of consideration to this claim. If you want to discuss black holes with me or anyone else, you really need to learn what you are talking about. Right now, your statements about black holes are nonsense.

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you nonsense.” — Euripides

Black Holes Appear 3D to Us, But Might Actually Be 2 dimensional

 

[AV1611VET]

A critique of the critique:

A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"

Camp Answers Theobald

 

[SkyWriting]

Given that you have demonstrated that you don't even know enough about black holes to know what an event horizon is, I don't see any reason to give even a second of consideration to this claim.

When matter is speeding into a black hole it reaches the speed of light if the gravity is high enough. This speed point forms a mathematically predicted barrier to any light attempting to exit the hole becasue it cannot exceed the speed of light.

If the particle pair you proposed were split at the event horizon, the annihilation would like take place inside the black hole. This doesn't suggest the creation of matter from nothing near as I can tell.

 

[Kylie]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

For a lie, evolution sure has a lot of testable evidence.

 

[Kylie]

You proposed the idea.

When did I propose the experiment? You're the one who did that.

Sure.
Since general relativity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, nothing inside the event horizon can ever cross the boundary and escape beyond it, including light.
The event horizons of compact stellar objects, such as neutron stars, can be viewed as dual gravitational energy barriers...
Event Horizon or Particle Barrier .PDF

So nothing can go from the inside to the outside. Agreed.

But I was talking about things going from the outside to the inside, wasn't I? So your argument that nothing can pass the event horizon is wrong.

And even if we were talking about things on the inside, they would not collect and pile up on the event horizon. They would fall back towards the singularity. In fact, unless they were starting out on the event horizon, they could never get to it, as once you are inside the event horizon, you can only go down, and never up.

So your arguments are still wrong.

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you nonsense.” — Euripides

Are you familiar with the Dunning Kruger effect?

Black Holes Appear 3D to Us, But Might Actually Be 2 dimensional

First, this is a hypothesis. So I have no idea why you are spouting it as an established fact.

Secondly, this is getting into information theory, which is nightmarishly complex. So I think it's safe to say that when it comes to information theory, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

When matter is speeding into a black hole it reaches the speed of light if the gravity is high enough.

Citation needed. Because I think you are wrong. Matter will never reach the speed of light. A little thing called Relativity.

This speed point forms a mathematically predicted barrier to any light attempting to exit the hole becasue it cannot exceed the speed of light.

Wow, not only do you not know what you are talking about, you can't even explain it clearly.

Things can't escape a black hole once they are inside the event horizon because the event horizon is where the escape velocity is the speed of light. If you are at the event horizon, the escape velocity is the speed of light. Inside the event horizon, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, and escape is impossible. But outside the event horizon, escape is possible, because the escape velocity is lower than the speed of light.

But thanks for the mansplaination.

If the particle pair you proposed were split at the event horizon, the annihilation would like take place inside the black hole. This doesn't suggest the creation of matter from nothing near as I can tell.

I'm sorry, where did I say that the particle/anti-particle pair were created AT the event horizon?

If you actually pay attention, you'll notice that I said, "If a particle/anti-particle pair is created near a black hole..."

That word NEAR is an important one, I suggest you pay attention to it.

 

[St_Worm2]

.....it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution. NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID. It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.'

Hi Tas, free right now on Netflix, there's a 2016, exceptionally well-done documentary called Is Genesis History? which may have what you're looking for

Here's the movie's cast:

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

--David
p.s. - this was a blind post, so I apologize if this movie has already been suggested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Tas, free right now on Netflix, there's a 2016, exceptionally well-done documentary called Is Genesis History? which may have what you're looking for

Here's the movie's cast:

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

--David
p.s. - this was a blind post, so I apologize if this movie has already been suggested.

Sadly that list is mostly liars and incompetents.

ETA: And loons.

I don't think that any of them have done any real science since they became creationists.

 

[St_Worm2]

Sadly that list is mostly liars and incompetents.

Do you have any evidence to support your claims, that the scientists who make up the cast of Is Genesis History? are "liars" and/or "incompetents", or are you just spitt'n out words to see where they splatter?

I don't think that any of them have done any real science since they became creationists.

Again, do you have any "proof" of that?

Also, what is "real science"? Is that science that agrees with what you believe is true?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - Tas asked for Creationists to offer evidence 'for' YEC and ID, not just arguments against Evolution. I believe this film offers quite a bit of what he asked for, which is why I posited it here for his consideration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any evidence to support your claims, that the scientists who make up the cast of Is Genesis History? are "liars" and/or "incompetents", or are you just spitt'n out words to see where they splatter?

Yep. Take Steve Austin for example. He has a PhD in geology. He made errors in radiometric dating that an undergrad would not make. He had to be lying to try to make radiometric dating look like a failed concept:

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

I can explain to you what he did wrong.

Again, do you have any "proof" of that?

Of course.

Also, what is "real science"? Is that science that agrees with what you believe is true?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - Tas asked for Creationists to offer evidence 'for' YEC and ID, not just arguments against Evolution. I believe this film offers quite a bit of what he asked for, which is why I posited it here for his consideration.

Most of those "scientists" work at places that require their employees not to use the scientific method. If one does not use the scientific method one cannot claim to be doing science.

And by the way, none of those scientists have evidence for creationism. Trust me, you won't find them offering any.

 

[St_Worm2]

Thanks. I don't need you to explain Dr. Austin's findings, but I will check them out and get back to you.

Also, for what it's worth, the movie opens with immediate evidence for a young earth, and it continues on from there. I'm not silly enough to believe that you would consider it so, but I do

--David

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. I don't need you to explain Dr. Austin's findings, but I will check them out and get back to you.

Also, for what it's worth, the movie opens with immediate evidence for a young earth, and it continues on from there. I'm not silly enough to believe that you would consider it so, but I do

--David

There is no evidence for a young Earth. Perhaps you could tell us what they claim is evidence for a young Earth and we can go from there.

One of the problems is that you probably do not understand the concept of evidence, especially when the subject is science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So by using science and natural law you are unable to scientifically prove how the universe was created through natural processes, but you expect US to provide scientific proof of a SUPERNATURAL creation?

1. I said it was unknown. I didn't make any claims about it. Not sure why you think I should have to "prove" anything, by saying that it is unknown.

2. I expect people who make claims, to be able to support said claims, yes. Why is that a problem?

In other words, you have faith in the fact that natural laws control the universe even though natural laws preclude the creation of the universe.

No. I don't require "faith" to say that something is unknown.

We have faith in God and God by definition could and DID create the universe.

lol. So, if I define a unicorn to be able to fart rainbows, then I get to say that unicorns by definition COULD do so and therefor DID?

Great logic, you got there.

Our God is knowable

You wouldn't need "faith", if that were true.

Your "science" is not. Which of us, then, is irrational?

The one who doesn't understand the concept of the burden of proof. And it's not me.

 

[tas8831]

You should aviod them absolutist statements.
Chromosome fusion
Introduction

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

Please, dear dmmesdale, oh great authority on all things, please re-read what I had posted, then please pretty please re-read the quote you replied with. Please examine and compare them, and re-think your conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything! Because your faith in a lie is what will condemn you all.

If it really were a lie, you could just demonstrate it to be such.
The fact that you're just using scare tactics, by threatening with "condemnation", shows that you got nothing.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm sorry, where did I say that the particle/anti-particle pair were created AT the event horizon?

If you actually pay attention, you'll notice that I said, "If a particle/anti-particle pair is created near a black hole..."

That word NEAR is an important one, I suggest you pay attention to it.

Exactly what spacing do you plan to use?
And when will you conduct this demonstration?

If a particle/anti-particle pair is created near a black hole, and one of them crosses the event horizon and the other doesn't, how do you suppose they annihilate?

How does this create matter from nothing?
Can we watch your experiment?

P.S.
Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment

I'll guess you will not be submitting a journal paper on this topic.

 

[lesliedellow]

What will you do then? What will you believe then? Will Darwin save you? The scriptures have already prophecied your calamity and responses...

That must be the eleventh and twelth commandments:

11.)Thou shalt believe that Charles Darwin was an agent of the Devil.
12.) Thou shalt spend one hour on the internet each day saying, "evolution is a lie," and thou shalt ignore all evidence to the contrary.