What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

So what makes you qualified to say that evolution is wrong?

Know other sciences.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Know other sciences.

That, in no way shape or form, means that you believe that you can say that evolutionary theory is wrong and that we should take your word for it.
A living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[juvenissun]

We have never seen a mountain range form either. I guess there are no mountains. On the other hand, there is this thing called evidence.

We have evidences that support ONE thing (such as the blackhole). We don't have one evidence with support everything. Evolution of bacteria does not support the evolution of dinosaurs AND humans. It only suggests the evolution of bacteria. We have zero evidence to support the evolution of dinosaurs.

Origin of mountain is not supported by just one evidence, but by many many evidences.

There is no comparison between the two.

 

[juvenissun]

That, in no way shape or form, means that you believe that you can say that evolutionary theory is wrong and that we should take your word for it.
A living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What do YOU have to say evolution is right? A bunch of things said by others?

 

[juvenissun]

We'll do that as soon as you spell out the name of your great^20 grandfather.

-CryptoLutheran

I can't. So it does not support the idea of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What do YOU have to say evolution is right? A bunch of things said by others?

What does me repeating evidence that evolution is correct have to do with it?
You have continually stated that evolution is wrong, but just left it. That's even worse than me showing the evidence found by other people that show evolution is factual.

 

[juvenissun]

What does me repeating evidence that evolution is correct have to do with it?
You have continually stated that evolution is wrong, but just left it. That's even worse than me showing the evidence found by other people that show evolution is factual.

You give me one evidence (even it is said by others), I will refute your evidence according to science/logic.

Would that be enough?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You give me one evidence (even it is said by others), I will refute your evidence according to science/logic.

Would that be enough?

I will do so on the condition that:

• the Bible is not referenced in any way shape or form
• the subject of your refutation is the same subject as the evidence I submit
• and that you actually present an actual refutation of the evidence according to science

Do you agree to those terms?

 

[Astrophile]

Primates.

We share ancestors with monkeys. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

Not that you care though. I predict that within 2 months (if it even takes that long) you will be repeating that biologists claim that "humans evolved from monkeys".

We did evolve from monkeys, at least in the sense that if we could meet our Oligocene ancestors, or the ancestors that we share with modern monkeys, we should say that they were monkeys. Of course, we didn't evolve from any modern species of monkey, but that should be obvious.

If we didn't evolve from monkeys, in the sense described in my first sentence, what did we evolve from? And why is it so difficult to believe that we evolved from monkeys, or at least from something that looked as much like a monkey as makes no difference?

 

[Astrophile]

And the gravitational force between gases are so weak that their density is
a small fraction of the atmosphere on earth.

"Planetary nebulae are typically one light year across and are expanding at a rate of about 20-50 km per second. The density in the nebulae is very low, ranging from several hundred to a million atoms per cubic centimeter. Such conditions are better than any vacuum one can achieve on Earth. "
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_nebulae

Stars do not form from planetary nebulae, which are the ejected outer layers of red giant stars. Stars form from interstellar molecular clouds, which are thousands or millions of times as massive as planetary nebulae, and mostly denser as well.

We've already had this argument in the thread 'The Cambrian problem'; various posters explained that a cloud whose mass exceeds the Jeans mass will contract under gravity, and have also pointed out that the cooling times of interstellar clouds are shorter than their contraction times, so that the clouds contract isothermally, not adiabatically.

 

[juvenissun]

I will do so on the condition that:

• the Bible is not referenced in any way shape or form
• the subject of your refutation is the same subject as the evidence I submit
• and that you actually present an actual refutation of the evidence according to science

Do you agree to those terms?

My refutation is always real, simple and to the point. It would be scientific and logic. I do not provide citations. It is your work.
And, it would most likely be a question to your argument. If you can not answer that, it tells you that the idea of evolution should not be real TO YOU. If your argument is a question, then I probably would try to find an answer for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My refutation is always real, simple and to the point. It would be scientific and logic. I do not provide citations. It is your work.
And, it would most likely be a question to your argument. If you can not answer that, it tells you that the idea of evolution should not be real TO YOU. If your argument is a question, then I probably would try to find an answer for you.

So I take it from your response that you don't agree with my very simple conditions and just continue to bluster again about how you are (in your own mind) the supreme logical being and that we should all just accept what you say and leave it at that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Know other sciences.

Perhaps some day you can demonstrate that knowledge?

 

[RickG]

You give me one evidence (even it is said by others), I will refute your evidence according to science/logic.

Would that be enough?

The fossil record. For evolution to be false all life forms that ever existed would be found in all layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is they are not. Did they just pop into existence at the right place and time? Remember you said according to science/logic.

 

[Shemjaza]

And the gravitational force between gases are so weak that their density is
a small fraction of the atmosphere on earth.

"Planetary nebulae are typically one light year across and are expanding at a rate of about 20-50 km per second. The density in the nebulae is very low, ranging from several hundred to a million atoms per cubic centimeter. Such conditions are better than any vacuum one can achieve on Earth. "
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_nebulae

The cloud as a whole has gravity that is acting on its component parts. Matter clumping together will chain react. It's been tested in models and evidence of it happening can be viewed all around us in the universe.

 

[Larniavc]

I do not provide citations.

This is because you make things up as you have admitted that you have no training in biology.

The things you make up are irrelevant to this subject.

 

[juvenissun]

So I take it from your response that you don't agree with my very simple conditions and just continue to bluster again about how you are (in your own mind) the supreme logical being and that we should all just accept what you say and leave it at that?

I do accept. I only tried to explain what I would do to your third one. I don't have problem with the other two.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I can't.

Therefore we know that your geneology is false. Yes?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

The fossil record. For evolution to be false all life forms that ever existed would be found in all layers of sedimentary strata. The fact is they are not. Did they just pop into existence at the right place and time? Remember you said according to science/logic.

They showed (popped) up. What do you mean by the right time and the right place? How could the time and place be wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is it logical? I do not see any logic there.

There is no reason that separately created species would share these features. The only reason we know of for these patterns of shared features is evolution.

Does it look like:
Because bacteria evolved in lab,
So human evolved from bacteria.

Nope. It looks like this:

It's called a phylogeny, and it is evidence of evolution. There is simply no reason we should see this pattern if life was separately created, either supernaturally or naturally.