• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Questions For Darwinists

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I think a majority of this forum accepts evolution as a fact. But do not they actually consider themself "darwinist" as much as someone would consider themself a "newtonianist" for accpeting his laws of motion.
They are called Newtonians not "Newtonianist."

And the creationists who believe in the myth of gravitation are indeed called Newtonians.

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"It's not that most of the matter and energy in the universe is dark, but that most cosmologists are totally in the dark about the real nature of the universe." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, October 2006
 
Upvote 0

SpaceMadness

My beloved icecream bar!
Dec 28, 2009
32
3
✟30,195.00
Faith
Atheist
As far as AoS quotes go, you'll find more enlightenment with Yoda.

"And well you should not! For my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. The force surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock...everywhere! Even between the land and the ship."
―Yoda
 
Upvote 0

Freysinn

You're on my noughty list!
Dec 18, 2009
86
3
Reykjavík, Iceland
✟22,732.00
Faith
Atheist
They are called Newtonians not "Newtonianist."

And the creationists who believe in the myth of gravitation are indeed called Newtonians.

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

"It's not that most of the matter and energy in the universe is dark, but that most cosmologists are totally in the dark about the real nature of the universe." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, October 2006

What alternative is there to gravity? And how is gravity a myth?
And i agree with Imre Lakatos, we know so little in comparison to what we could know. Please note that quote mining doesn't help your argument especialy when the people that you are quoting aren't scientists.

So how about plate tectonics? do you consider it a myth?
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
What alternative is there to gravity?
There is none. Gravity is an observation.

However the alternative to the outmoded 17th century creationist myth of universal gravitation is called electromagnetism or plasma cosmology.

MACHOs and WIMPs

And how is gravity a myth?
It's not. Gravity is an observation. Universal gravitation is the 17th century creationist myth you are looking for.

So how about plate tectonics? do you consider it a myth?
Yes.

Expansion Tectonics is a scientific fact which anyone can measure for themselves if they have at least one braincell of honesty and intellectual integrity.

"Five propositions in Geology, namely Plate Tectonics, Constant Size Earth, Heat Engine Earth, Elastic Rebound, and the Organic Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are challenged as Myths because their potential truth is not confirmed by Observation, and/or Experiment, and/or Logic. In their place the Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST, i.e., a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth and its implications, such as the Inorganic Origin of Hydrocarbons, claims to be a Comprehensive Proposition." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, November 2007

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2007/athens_conf/abstracts/tassos01.htm
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How come we don't observe any new animals evolving?
What counts as a new animal?

How come abiogenesis has never been observed in nature or the laboratory?
How come galaxy formation hasn't? Maybe our laboratory conditions aren't quite sufficient to reproduce the phenomenon?

Besides, what Wedjat said.

Different hypothosized stages of abiogenesis have been reproduced in lab conditions.
Including growing, dividing protocells (check out cdk007's youtube video on abiogenesis) and indefinitely replicating ribozymes.

Wedjat said:
As for why we don't see it in nature... well, coincidentally (by which I mean not a coincidence at all) the raw material for new life is also the kind of stuff that would get eaten up in an instant by nearby microorganisms. Also, any new forms of life would be so under evolved that they would be severely disadvantaged by all the surrounding existent life and die out within- minutes actually.
In short, abiogenesis can only occur where there is not currently any life.
"Underevolved" is a loaded word. I'd say they would be poorly adapted to densely populated environments. Otherwise, agreed.

Someone who believes in the following: the common descent of all life on Earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection.
Then few contemporary people who know the basics about evolution would be Darwinists, seeing as natural selection is not the only force of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
What counts as a new animal?
Any new genera.

How come galaxy formation hasn't? Maybe our laboratory conditions aren't quite sufficient to reproduce the phenomenon?
We observe galaxy formation in nature however spiral plasmoids have been reproduced in the lab by Winston Bostick and Anthony Peratt.

Then few contemporary people who know the basics about evolution would be Darwinists, seeing as natural selection is not the only force of evolution.
Clearly you didn't actually read what I wrote because I said undirected mutation AND natural selection. This is called Neo-Darwinism aka simply Darwinism.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Any new genera.
OK.

The problem with genera is that they don't represent a single level of divergence. For example, genus Drosophila includes species that are thought to have diverged over 40 million years ago, while the same time interval on our lineage involves the divergence of several families (and primates have longer generations than flies). There are plenty of lumper vs. splitter debates at the generic level, plus old wastebasket genera like Megalosaurus (or Bufo, for a living example).

We observe galaxy formation in nature however spiral plasmoids have been reproduced in the lab by Winston Bostick and Anthony Peratt.
Protocells and replicating ribozymes have also been reproduced in the lab, and they are probably more similar to early life forms than plasmoids are to galaxies. Your point?

Clearly you didn't actually read what I wrote because I said undirected mutation AND natural selection. This is called Neo-Darwinism aka simply Darwinism.
I read what you wrote, sorry if I forgot to proofread my reply. I can amend my response to "mutation and natural selection aren't the only forces of evolution", if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the point.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
OK.

The problem with genera is that they don't represent a single level of divergence. For example, genus Drosophila includes species that are thought to have diverged over 40 million years ago, while the same time interval on our lineage involves the divergence of several families (and primates have longer generations than flies). There are plenty of lumper vs. splitter debates at the generic level, plus old wastebasket genera like Megalosaurus (or Bufo, for a living example).
I'll take your failure to name a newly evolved animal as a concession.

Protocells and replicating ribozymes have also been reproduced in the lab, and they are probably more similar to early life forms than plasmoids are to galaxies. Your point?
If you don't see my point then you probably never will.

I read what you wrote, sorry if I forgot to proofread my reply. I can amend my response to "mutation and natural selection aren't the only forces of evolution", if that makes you feel better. Doesn't change the point.
What other forces of evolution do you claim exist?
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟33,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How come we don't observe any new animals evolving?

How come we don't observe any new animals being created by God?

I'll take your failure to name a newly evolved animal as a concession.
Do you understand the amount of time it takes for an entirely new species to evolve? Millions of years. When humans live for millions of years, you can observe evolution happening on a large scale.

What we CAN see is this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
How come we don't observe any new animals being created by God?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7429641-3/#post53852619

Do you understand the amount of time it takes for an entirely new species to evolve? Millions of years.
That's not what evolution says.

Evolution says that one day 195,000 years ago Homo sapiens sapiens didn't exist and then the next day they magically and miraculously appeared instantaneously.

When humans live for millions of years, you can observe evolution happening on a large scale.
Humans have lived for millions of years yet we have observed no evolution.

What we have observed is the exact opposite, namely devolution from superior humans to inferior humans: http://www.christianforums.com/t7422288/
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟30,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'll take your failure to name a newly evolved animal as a concession.
I'll take your failure to comprehend the problem with your demand as an indication that you have no intention of considering the other side.

In any case, I forgot to ask you the most important question (seems I'm not paying attention tonight):

Why would a "Darwinist" expect a new genus (whatever that is) to form at an observable rate?

If you don't see my point then you probably never will.
I'm a smart girl, I can usually see points that are explained... but I honestly think plasmoids don't refute my point at all, so please do explain.

What other forces of evolution do you claim exist?
Let me first note that I don't claim anything that people more qualified than me (i.e. prominent evolutionary scientists) didn't. Here are a few off the top of my head:

Sexual selection and multi-level (group; species and above) selection could be considered specific types of natural selection, but I'm mentioning them because I don't think most people think of them when they hear "natural selection".

Like natural selection, genetic drift is a mechanism of sorting genetic variation, but unlike NS, it's random. A higher-level analogue of genetic drift is also conceivable. Say a bird family only occurs on a remote island (Hawaiian honeycreepers come pretty close) that is later swallowed by rising sea levels. It doesn't matter how well the birds adapted and how vigorously they speciated, the end of their habitat is the end of them.

Developmental bias constrains variation as it's generated. In any organism, some kinds of variation are easier to generate than others. For example, in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana, the different eyespots of the wing are largely independent in their size, but it appears that the relative width of their black and gold rings can only vary together (paper). Here's a theoretical paper suggesting that more complex developmental programs (or more precisely, gene regulatory networks) narrow the range of phenotypes that can be generated from a given genotype.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Why would a "Darwinist" expect a new genus (whatever that is) to form at an observable rate?
An excellent question.

Since Darwinists reject observation and the scientific method I don't think that they would expect evolution to be observed.

The tuatara, allegedly the fastest evolving animal on Earth, hasn't evolved a single cell in over 200 million years. Since the allegedly fastest evolving animal hasn't changed in the last 200 million years no other animal has either. The allegedly fastest evolving animal on Earth is called a living fossil because it hasn't evolved at all.

Similarly, cyanobacteria and archaea have not evolved a single cell in over 3.6 billion years.

Sexual selection and multi-level (group; species and above) selection could be considered specific types of natural selection, but I'm mentioning them because I don't think most people think of them when they hear "natural selection".
They are natural selection.

Like natural selection, genetic drift is a mechanism of sorting genetic variation, but unlike NS, it's random. A higher-level analogue of genetic drift is also conceivable. Say a bird family only occurs on a remote island (Hawaiian honeycreepers come pretty close) that is later swallowed by rising sea levels. It doesn't matter how well the birds adapted and how vigorously they speciated, the end of their habitat is the end of them.
Aka undirected mutation.

Developmental bias constrains variation as it's generated. In any organism, some kinds of variation are easier to generate than others. For example, in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana, the different eyespots of the wing are largely independent in their size, but it appears that the relative width of their black and gold rings can only vary together (paper). Here's a theoretical paper suggesting that more complex developmental programs (or more precisely, gene regulatory networks) narrow the range of phenotypes that can be generated from a given genotype.
Aka natural selection.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
There is none. Gravity is an observation.

However the alternative to the outmoded 17th century creationist myth of universal gravitation is called electromagnetism or plasma cosmology.

MACHOs and WIMPs


It's not. Gravity is an observation. Universal gravitation is the 17th century creationist myth you are looking for.
No gravity is a force like electromagnetism and nuclear forces though an exceptionally weak force.

Einstein theorized that gravity is a function of mass as it distorts space time. Currently those working with quantum mechanics theorize gravity to be extra dimensional in origin…that it is a force that leaks from another dimension into ours explaining why it is so week compared to other forces.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
No gravity is a force like electromagnetism and nuclear forces though an exceptionally weak force.
I say gravity is electromagnetism. We stick to the Earth like a magnet sticks to the fridge because we are magnets and the Earth is a magnet.

"Diamagnetic substances include water, protein, diamond, DNA, plastic, wood, and many other common substances usually thought to be nonmagnetic." -- Martin D. Simon, professor, May 2000

"When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements [of Saturn's Rings] seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work." -- Ron Baalke, astrophysicist, 1998

"By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"The advantage of using this [Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell] apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the 'artificial gravity' is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection." -- James E. Arnold, geoscientist, March 1995

"...experiments carried out by T. Townsend Brown, Paul A. Biefeld, and others, suggest that electric and gravitational fields may be strongly connected at voltages as low as 105 ev. If true, this would indicate the standard field theories are seriously flawed." -- Paul A. LaViolette, author, 1992

"Gravitational energy is 10^36 times weaker than electricity...." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"...gravitational force is quadrillions of times weaker than electricity or magnetism." -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

"But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism. So the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that we can repeat as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry and astronomy should not be free...and it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and solar plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon ." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

"The picture of an atom began to look more like a miniature solar system with an atomic nucleus for the sun, and electrons for planets. The analogy with the planetary system can be further strengthened by these facts: the atomic nucleus contains 99.97 per cent of the total atomic mass as compared with 99.87 per cent of the solar system concentrated in the sun, and the distances between the planetary electrons exceed their diameters by about the same factor (several thousand times) which we find when comparing interplanetary distances with the diameters of the planets. The more important analogy lies, however, in the fact that the electric attraction-forces between the atomic nucleus and the electrons obey the same mathematical law of inverse square (that is, the forces are inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between two bodies) as the gravity forces acting between the sun and the planets. This makes the electrons describe the circular and elliptic trajectories around the nucleus, similar to those along which the planets and comets move in the solar system." -- George Gamow, physicist, 1961

"Which experiment would you [Velikovsky] like to have performed now? I know which experiment you would like now—the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1955

"My book is as strange as the fact that the Earth is a magnet, the cause of which is indeterminate and the consequences of which are not estimated in the Earth-Moon relations." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

"Now in the same 1845, the year of this triumph, Leverrier calculated also the anomaly of Mercury, and by this caused to think that the Newtonian law of gravitation may be not precisely true. Leverrier first thought of some planet moving inside the Mercurial orbit or of a possible unequal distribution of the mass in the sun. You [Einstein] have used the fact of the anomaly to prove that the space is curving in the presence of a mass. About the same time—in 1913—G. E. Hale published his paper on 'The general magnetic field of the sun' (Contr. M. Wilson Obs., #71), in which he estimated the general magnetic field of the sun as of 50 Gauss intensity. At this intensity 'under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation.' (Alfven) The last named author in his 'cosmical Electro-dynamics' (Oxford, 1950, p. 2) shows that a hydrogen atom at the distance of the earth from the sun and moving with the earth’s orbital velocity, if ionized, is acted upon by the solar magnetic field ten thousand times stronger than by the solar gravitational field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1952

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946

"According to our present view every atom consists of a small heavy nucleus approximately 1O^-12 cm in diameter sur-rounded by a largely empty region 1O^-8 cm in diameter in which electrons move somewhat like planets about the sun." -- Hendy D. Smyth, physicist, 1945

"The earth itself is a great big magnet." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945

"Now about the sphere magnet. If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything. In fact, they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnet against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets are cosmic force. They hold together this earth and everything in it." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945

"The writer and his colleagues anticipated the present situation even as early as 1923, and began at that time to construct the necessary theoretical bridge between the two then separate phenomena, electricity and gravitation. The first actual demonstration of the relation was made in 1924." -- T. Townsend Brown, physicist, Aug 1929

"It is found that matter and electricity are very closely related in structure. ... it is self-evident that matter is connected with gravitation and it follows logically that electricity is likewise connected." -- T. Townsend Brown, physicist, Aug 1929

"An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity." -- Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1924

"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics, expressed in terms of the medium which he suspected and sought after but could not attain, and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical—especially the fact of variable inertia—discovered since his time…" -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicst, February 1921

"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet." -- George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...inertia is exclusively of electromagnetic origin...." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

"...the great truth, accidentally revealed and experimentally confirmed, is fully recognized, that this planet, with all its appalling immensity, is to electric currents virtually no more than a small metal ball...." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1904

"If it be true that every atom occupies the same volume of space, then gravitation might seem to be an effect depending on the crowdedness of electrons; but when an atom, breaks up into unequal parts, the smaller portion must in that case undergo considerable expansion, and that would be inconsistent with the constancy of gravitation, if it depended on crowdedness: hence I think it more probable that it depends on some interaction between positive and negative electricity, and that it is generated when these two come together, that is whenever an atom of matter is formed." -- Oliver J. Lodge, physicist, 1904

"Impossible as it seemed, this planet, despite its vast extent, behaved like a conductor of limited dimensions." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1900

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

"I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly related and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. In modern times the proofs of their convertibility have been accumulated to a very considerable extent, and a commencement made of the determination of their equivalent forces." -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1845

"Thus we cognize the existence of a magnetic matter penetrating all bodies from the perception of attracted iron filings, although an immediate perception of this matter is impossible for us given the constitution of our organs." -- Immanuel Kant, natural philosopher, 1781

"And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1686

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, 1609

Einstein theorized that gravity is a function of mass as it distorts space time.
And he was wrong.

Einstein should have paid more attention to Aristotle, Leibniz, Maupertuis, and Kant.

"In a nutshell, Pastor Al [Einstein] was deluded into thinking that space is a physical object." -- Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

Currently those working with quantum mechanics theorize gravity to be extra dimensional in origin…that it is a force that leaks from another dimension into ours explaining why it is so week compared to other forces.
Do they wear tinfoil hats to detect the extra dimensions?
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
An excellent question.

Since Darwinists reject observation and the scientific method I don't think that they would expect evolution to be observed.

The tuatara, allegedly the fastest evolving animal on Earth, hasn't evolved a single cell in over 200 million years. Since the allegedly fastest evolving animal hasn't changed in the last 200 million years no other animal has either. The allegedly fastest evolving animal on Earth is called a living fossil because it hasn't evolved at all.
Repeating false information doesn’t make that information true.


The two species of tuatara are the only surviving members of its order, which flourished around 200 million years ago. It is a flase statemtn to claim that the tuatara have not evoleved in millions of years when they obviously have. you seem ot be purposfully misusing the statemtn that these animals retain many features of earlier ancestors that help us understand the diverging evolution of reptiles and birds. You apparently do not understand the differnce between molecualr evolution and morphological evolution. Changes in DNA donot necessarily result in observal physical cahnges. Molecuarl evilution can result in such things as longer lifespans, cold weather adaptation, expansion of dietary avalibility, social reorganization and so on.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The two species of tuatara are the only surviving members of its order, which flourished around 200 million years ago. It is a flase statemtn to claim that the tuatara have not evoleved in millions of years when they obviously have.
The tuatara is a "living fossil" because it hasn't evolved in 200 million years.

You apparently do not understand the differnce between molecualr evolution and morphological evolution.
I'm talking about morphological evolution. There is none.

Changes in DNA donot necessarily result in observal physical cahnges.
Exactly. I rest my case.

Molecuarl evilution can result in such things as longer lifespans, cold weather adaptation, expansion of dietary avalibility, social reorganization and so on.
Already there in the DNA because DNA was intelligently designed by our almighty blessed LORD.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
People saying the world is flat do nothing to change the shape of the world
I agree.

Believing in the 17th century creationist myth of gravitation won't make the universe obey it.

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

"They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them...." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1970
 
Upvote 0