Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[lesliedellow]

e=MC^2 is one of the biggest useless hoaxes around.

Now is that so? Well, I guess the British Government are just wasting their money building a new generation of nuclear power stations, aren't they?

 

[morse86]

Now is that so? Well, I guess the British Government are just wasting their money building a new generation of nuclear power stations, aren't they?

I guess you never bothered to read about Galen Winsor or cluesforum research on the nuclear hoax. Even the old WW2 footage from Japan where the Japanese military generals state that the atom/nuke was a hoax and it was all propaganda.

e=MC^2 is the biggest hoax. Einstein is just a actor they put on a pedestal so the public masses can worship. Just like stephen hawking, another actor.

 

[durangodawood]

Forget about that. Evolutionists have bigger problems......like explaining origin (they try to evade this).

Every evolutionist must answer where we came from. Eventually you get down to everything coming from nothing. They even have mathematics equations about everything coming from nothing. The pseudo scientists behind this are lunatics.

When mathematics disconnect from reality/observation science, it is lunacy. e=MC^2 is one of the biggest useless hoaxes around.

Lots of Christians are evolutionists.
And they say it all came from god.
So there.

 

[morse86]

Lots of Christians are evolutionists.
And they say it all came from god.
So there.

The term christian today has become meaningless. Even People who believe in aliens are called christians too by the Telievision and most people believe the Telievision.

I'd say those that believe in the King James bible (or any of the old bibles based on textus receptus) cannot be evolutionists.

 

[durangodawood]

The term christian today has become meaningless. Even People who believe in aliens are called christians too by the Telievision and most people believe the Telievision.

I'd say those that believe in the King James bible (or any of the old bibles based on textus receptus) cannot be evolutionists.

Be careful about disputing the Christianity of Christians here. They banish people for that. I wont tell though.

 

[morse86]

What? I merely defined the modern day definition of christianity. I didn't refer to any person or christian.

 

[durangodawood]

What? I merely defined the modern day definition of christianity. I didn't refer to any person or christian.

The Christians here who believe in evolution, do you think they are Christians? It sounds like you dont from your previous post. Sorry if I'm mistaken.

 

[jayem]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory? What is it about the scientific explanations that you've been given that leaves you wanting a better explanation? Are you still in search of more science to back up these explanations or have you given up and left your curiosity unsatisfied on these topics?

Getting back to the OP, I have some problems with M-theory. At least in its present state it has much in common with supernaturalism. For mathematical consistency, it postulates the existence of entities (7 dimensions in addition to time and the 3 spatial dimensions) that are seemingly outside the realm of the natural world. With no explanation for where they came from, how they operate, and no way to either confirm or deny their existence. Just like supernatural explanations postulate the existence of gods, spirits, and such. OTOH, the Higgs boson was a similar mental construct that couldn't be verified until CERN came along. So maybe some time in the future, the same will be true for branes, superstrings, and a multi-dimensional universe.

 

[SkyWriting]

As that first wiki link says (first line): "Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe: extraterrestrial life and life on Earth."
Notice how they separate 'origin' from 'evolution' in that definition. As for the existence of the web sites - that's the internet for you... If you mean how do I explain the existence of Astrobiology, the wiki quote describes what it's about, and the reason people want to study that stuff is curiosity.

They are including them all together.
Not separating at all.

 

[SkyWriting]

I guess you never bothered to read about Galen Winsor or cluesforum research on the nuclear hoax. Even the old WW2 footage from Japan where the Japanese military generals state that the atom/nuke was a hoax and it was all propaganda.

e=MC^2 is the biggest hoax. Einstein is just a actor they put on a pedestal so the public masses can worship. Just like stephen hawking, another actor.

Except the formula has been tested in Japan.

 

[SkyWriting]

To describe abiogenesis as a sub topic of Evolution is like describing the physics of sound as a subtopic of musicology.

I wouldn't know. But it is taught, in those links, as a sub topic
in spite of your educational objections.

 

[SkyWriting]

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a difference between believing that something happened, and believing that that something has been sufficiently accounted for.

Not really any difference at all.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not really any difference at all.

There is a very big difference. Even atheists believe that Christianity burst onto the stage of history, but there are widely divergent ideas about how that fact is to be accounted for.

 

[lesliedellow]

I guess you never bothered to read about Galen Winsor or cluesforum research on the nuclear hoax. Even the old WW2 footage from Japan where the Japanese military generals state that the atom/nuke was a hoax and it was all propaganda.

e=MC^2 is the biggest hoax. Einstein is just a actor they put on a pedestal so the public masses can worship. Just like stephen hawking, another actor.

So I guess that wasting billions of our money is the British Government's idea of the best way to win the next election. I suppose that in the world of flat Earth conspiracy theorists, that makes perfect sense.

I think I could begin to lose my sanity if I spent too long on this forum.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'd say those that believe in the King James bible (or any of the old bibles based on textus receptus) cannot be evolutionists.

Have I got news for you. Still, I suppose that I don't "believe in it" (I reserve that for God); I just prefer it.

 

[davedajobauk]

it amazes me how evolutionists applies "evolve" to all sorts of phenomena, computers, airplanes, cars.
never mind these processes involved intelligent intervention.
but yet when it comes to molecules evolving into life, they are loathe to mention the word evolve.
maybe the second part of your quote explains why that is.

Forget about that. Evolutionists have bigger problems......like explaining origin (they try to evade this).

Every evolutionist must answer where we came from. Eventually you get down to everything coming from nothing. They even have mathematics equations about everything coming from nothing. The pseudo scientists behind this are lunatics.

When mathematics disconnect from reality/observation science, it is lunacy. e=MC^2 is one of the biggest useless hoaxes around.

You do not see, that the flood of original single-cells, had intent
to find their own niche (a belonging) and flourish ?

What does the word EVOLVE really mean... it's purpose is plain to me
to enjoin ~come together ~for the common good ~to become whole
~to commune as one ~one body


It is like throwing down a box full of 'building blocks'
and calling to them to
"FIND A WAY, TO BUILD YOURSELVES, AS I INTENDED"

The unthinking, will not congregate
The selfish, will not congregate
The unaligned, will not congregate
The greedy, will not SHARE

?????

 

[davedajobauk]

Something to think about.....


Genesis tells of folks that lived for hundreds of years until they were shut out
Average life expectancy (for humans) only a few centuries ago, was 35-40 years
and now it's pushing 70.... are we 'getting-back'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But, they are not sentient

They are not, like fish, the animals, the birds
How do they 'evolve' (can they evolve) and what, might they evolve to become ~as single cell species

There is no requirement for evolution by natural selection to involve sentience. All organisms, sentient or otherwise, can evolve by natural selection. All it takes is heritable variability and selection pressure (survivability). So we have contemporary evidence of new strains of cold and flu viruses evolving year by year and of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. The evolution of new species of plants has been observed also.

Single-cell organisms will evolve to survive in whatever environment they find themselves, or they will die. For example, when you take a course of antibiotics for a bacterial infection, some of the millions of bacteria causing the infection will, by chance genetic variation, be more sensitive to the antibiotic, and some will be less sensitive. The more sensitive ones will die quickly, most of the others will take a little longer to die, and the least sensitive ones will survive longest. You'll probably start feeling better when most of the bacteria have died, but if you stop taking the antibiotics at that point, a few less drug-sensitive bacteria may still be alive. Your immune system may be able to take care of them, but in the meantime you might infect someone else with these more resistant bacteria. If they cause an infection in the other person that requires antibiotics, they'll be harder to kill with the same antibiotic that you were taking, because the population started from the resistant bacteria that survived your antibiotics. If this person doesn't complete their course of antibiotics, the natural variability of the bacteria may mean that a few even more resistant bacteria are still around to infect others. In this way, antibiotics carelessly used can be a powerful force for selecting resistant bacteria; this, and the prophylactic use of antibiotics in farming, has led to the proliferation of multiple drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Everyday evolution in action in singe-celled creatures.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

it amazes me how evolutionists applies "evolve" to all sorts of phenomena, computers, airplanes, cars.
never mind these processes involved intelligent intervention.
but yet when it comes to molecules evolving into life, they are loathe to mention the word evolve.
maybe the second part of your quote explains why that is.

The word 'evolve' has slightly different meanings in different contexts - in a general context it just means 'to develop gradually' (in chemistry it means 'to give off', e.g. gas, heat). In the biological sciences it is used as a shorthand for the genetic changes in living populations - as explained by Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TOE).

Computers, planes, and cars do change gradually over time, but the reasons for those changes are not processes of natural selection as you rightly point out; they involve customer preference, technology, economics, etc. So it's evolution in the general sense, but not biological evolution.

Biological evolution (as in the TOE) deals with the genetic changes occurring in living creatures in populations over multiple generations. This means it only applies to living creatures (biological replicators at minimum).

There are various hypotheses about how the first simple organic replicators (proto-life) emerged from inanimate organic molecules (abiogenesis), and some of these do involve gradual changes to those molecules, so they could indeed be called evolution in the general sense.

The reason biologists are sensitive about referring to abiogenesis as evolution is to avoid confusion with the genetic evolution of living creatures. Abiogenesis is not yet a scientific theory, it currently consists of a number of competing and incomplete hypotheses (proposed explanations). The TOE is a scientific theory (a well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation). From a scientific point of view, they are very different things.

So the attempt to avoid confusion due to the ambiguous use of 'evolution' in this context appears to have led to conceptual confusion over its use...

 

[durangodawood]

"evolution" is a generic world for ongoing change.
"evolution by natural selection" is specific to biological forms.
Its not that hard to understand.