What you aren't being told about astronomy

[freezerman2000]

View attachment 168514 View attachment 168515

First, astronomers have discovered 194 interstellar and circumstellar molecules, fifteen of which have ten or more atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules). Second, we can actually see interstellar molecular clouds, as dark nebulae. As you can see from the attached images, these dark nebulae are opaque; radiation cannot penetrate through them, so their molecules are protected from destruction. As I understand it, the molecules are adsorbed onto interstellar dust grains, which eventually become parts of comets or asteroids.


I don't understand this. How would wood chips get into an interstellar cloud? They must have been part of a plant, but there are no plants in interstellar space, or even on any planet other than the Earth. Remember that the planets formed from the solar nebula, so there were no life-bearing planets to provide wood chips or any organic matter to the nebula.

Also, interstellar molecular clouds have masses of thousands or even millions of solar masses (up to a trillion Earth masses); it would take more than a planet's worth of wood chips to supply the observed quantities of organic molecules.

View attachment 168514 View attachment 168515

How do you know there are no plants on any planet other than earth?

 

[juvenissun]

Then you have no business claiming that it is a true dichotomy.

And neither do I. And before Einstein, nobody knew a viable alternative to Newton's theory. That doesn't mean there was some true dichotomy between Newtonian mechanics and "Angels pull things down"-ism.

But, I still want to claim it, until it is proven false.
Because it is important for me to argue against evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

That is a flat out lie. I have asked you, at least twice, to show how evolution is wrong, using the fossil record as an example. And the only thing you have done is say "creation explains it" and left it at that.

There is never a demonstration which shows one species of animal evolved into another species.
Do not just rambling on the cloud. Come down to the ground and let's talk about science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But, I still want to claim it, until it is proven false.
Because it is important for me to argue against evolution.

But you're not even arguing against evolution. You're just repeatedly saying "it's wrong!" then stuffing your head in to the ground, only popping up to repeat "it's wrong!" before- you can see where I am going with this.

 

[juvenissun]

No you can't, it's the one thing you have demonstrated in this thread. It's quite sad to see the lengths some people will go to to avoid admitting they spoke in error.

The problem is: By using evolution, we still can NOT explain the fossil sequence.

 

[RickG]

There is never a demonstration which shows one species of animal evolved into another species.

That has nothing to do with the challenge you agreed to pursue which is explained the fossil record without evolution.

Do not just rambling on the cloud. Come down to the ground and let's talk about science.

We sincerely would love to talk about science, but you have yet to present any scientific evidence supporting your position with respect to the challenge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is never a demonstration which shows one species of animal evolved into another species.
Do not just rambling on the cloud. Come down to the ground and let's talk about science.

Yes there is!
Evolution of the horse
Evolution of cetaceans
Evolution of birds
Evolution of man
These are four pages with demonstrations of decent with modification .i.e one species of animal evolving in to another.
You have done nothing put stick your head in the ground and you have certainly not given ANYTHING remotely close to scientific in response.

 

[RickG]

The problem is: By using evolution, we still can NOT explain the fossil sequence.

The fossil sequence is what explains evolution. How did they get where they are in the fossil record without evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Yes there is!
Evolution of the horse
Evolution of cetaceans
Evolution of birds
Evolution of man
These are four pages with demonstrations of decent with modification .i.e one species of animal evolving in to another.
You have done nothing put stick your head in the ground and you have certainly not given ANYTHING remotely close to scientific in response.

That is what I said. People showed one skeleton and another similar skeleton then suggested one evolved into another. This is not science, this is story telling. What I like to see is HOW did the change take place. Nobody can explain/demonstrate that. If one do this kind of "scientific" study in any another discipline, it would become a laughingstock.

Do you (or anybody) know how did ??? evolved into human? You read that link, why don't you explain it a little bit?

 

[juvenissun]

The fossil sequence is what explains evolution. How did they get where they are in the fossil record without evolution?

I don't think you know how to use the word "explain" in this case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is what I said. People showed one skeleton and another similar skeleton then suggested one evolved into another. This is not science, this is story telling. What I like to see is HOW did the change take place. Nobody can explain/demonstrate that. If one do this kind of "scientific" study in any another discipline, it would become a laughingstock.

Do you (or anybody) know how did ??? evolved into human? You read that link, why don't you explain it a little bit?

This post, and your response to RickG above, proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that you know literally anything about evolution. You don't even know what you're arguing against! You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[The Cadet]

But, I still want to claim it, until it is proven false.
Because it is important for me to argue against evolution.

...You want to claim it. It's important to you.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't get you one step closer to your arguments making any sense. It just sort of sounds like you're giving up.

 

[RickG]

I don't think you know how to use the word "explain" in this case.

Still no science or logic. How does the fossil record not explain evolution? Did it all just pop into the geologic strata at the right place and time to demonstrate evolution? How did those fossils get where they are found in the sedimentary strata without evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

...You want to claim it. It's important to you.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't get you one step closer to your arguments making any sense. It just sort of sounds like you're giving up.

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

Still no science or logic. How does the fossil record not explain evolution? Did it all just pop into the geologic strata at the right place and time to demonstrate evolution? How did those fossils get where they are found in the sedimentary strata without evolution?

Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.

 

[juvenissun]

Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.

How though?

 

[juvenissun]

How though?

Why do you ask me who knows nothing about science?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you ask me who knows nothing about science?

I enjoy being proven wrong.
So: how?

 

[RickG]

Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.

And that is all that is being asked of you. If not by evolution, how did they get there?