Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[Slartibartfast]

I see your anecdote...and raise you my news article...

...Someone refutes a theory using sound scientific principles, unable able to counter the fan boys of the theory ask what is the alternative, biblical creation is proposed, evidence is demanded, evidence is given. However given that the implications of the truth of biblical creation is scientifically and theologically onerous, it is rejected and the claim by a biased non theist crowd is that there is no evidence for creation, creationists are stupid, let's return to exploring the profundities of how nothing can become everything, life can come from non life and other things we have "mountains of evidence for."

Lol. Whatever evidence is given is normally quickly and easily refuted and further clarification is normally as for, at which point the sidesteps begin.

Also, there is no evidence for the alternative except that "We can't explain it so it must be God" but that is a logical fallacy. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it has to be God.

Crazy $h!t here---> I could just as easily say the company I work for built this planet for a client as an experiment in what a planets population will do when they are cut off from the rest of the Galactic Empire. My co-workers designed everything you see around you. In fact, I actually won an award for designing the coast of Norway. We also gave you guys a life span equal to 1/1000th the life span of everyone else to speed up the results. So what has seemed like 6000 years to you is like 6 years to me. Not unheard of to work on a study for that long. <--- Crazy $h!t here

Now we both know that is clearly false, but I am betting you I can defend that a lot easier than you defend the creationist stance. There is a lot of more evidence to support my story.

Do you see why science has to be so strict. Because there are infinite wrong answers that can can be supported by evidence. Even in evolution. Which is why if you are presenting an alternative you can't half @$$ the proof and say "well we don't know this so it must be God"

Also, it is known the earth is more than a few thousand years old. Just google it for proof. Scientist don't debate that anymore because it is as ridiculous as my story. So if the professor published an article in the name of the university that supported those theories, that could significantly hurt the university. That is why he would have been fired, regardless of what the article or his supervisor said. Picture it like a church teaching that creationism is wrong and God does not exist.

Seriously, lol at that alternative thing though. 6 sidesteps and an easily refuted "theory" with circumstantial evidence at best. You will need to elaborate your answers in the way that I have if you want your theory to even be considered. Stating unmovable movers et al don't count.

[sMASH]

All hail the great noodle!

[Habit7]

He didn't publish the paper under the university name. They didn't hire him as a professor, they hired him as a lab tech for the electron microscope. I don't have the willingness to clear up all your other errors but other than in the self affirming world you live in, the paper has not been refuted.

[Slartibartfast]

Fair enough. Once he didn't mention the university anywhere in the article or in his signature then he should I will say the supervisor just looking for an excuse to fire him.

The paper may have not been refuted but a lot of what the article states was in the paper already has. So it is possible no other scientist want to waste time refuting it (i.e. other scientists "don't have the willingness to clear up all ... errors"). My theory hasn't been refuted either so it could be true.

Also, that's fox news so I won't argue anything for or against his paper on what the article says.

[Chimera]

I see your anecdote...and raise you my news article:

Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs
Published July 30, 2014

A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs.

Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week.

Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont.

Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive.

Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago.

Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young.

On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/searc ... k+Armitage

docbill1351 | 25-July-2014 at 6:46 pm |
What a mess! A mess o’ creationists, that is.

Armatage is familiar and I’ll have to figure out where he’s surfaced before, unless I’m just remembering the original story from last year. That’s probably it. He was hired by CSU, Northridge as an electron microscope technician. He’s got a BS in education from Liberty University and a “masters” is parasitology (how fitting!) from our old friends, Institute for Creationist Research! Most of his “work” appears to have been in his microscope sales company.

Armitage is certainly not a “CSUN Scientist.” He’s a technician on contract. He also holds position #453 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

Kevin Anderson is sure enough an Asst. Prof. of Biology (microbiologist) at Arkansas State University, Beebe which is a 2-year college and he’s a great creationist! He is Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center for the Creation Research Society and editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

As for “peer reviewed,” who knows. They published at the on-line site of who knows what journal published by Elsevier that has a bad reputation for publishing junk for a price.
Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Mark Armitage
americanloons.blogspot.com
It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

[Habit7]

Again attacking personalities, not the factuality of the science.

P.s. That blog post doesn't even refute anything in the article.

[Slartibartfast]

Just like nothing I said was refuted. Seriously dude... have you seen the Norway coastline? Some of my best work

[bluefete]

bluefete to understand how Krauss knows the big bang came from nothing which is in reality something you first need to understand basic things like this below. These are the basic things that affect us in everyday life.

You are one wicked man!!

Anyways, that last equation references Higg's Bo'sun which leads to a discussion of the existence of dark matter.

The middle equations have me lost. Gravity and space-time I am aware of.

[bluefete]

Effectic Design:

So Krauss's concept of nothing is "a quantum vacuum". But a quantum vacuum does not indicate nothingness. There is matter present in a quantum vacuum. So he is just playing smart with foolishness to avoid the discussion of how the universe truly came from nothing.

Having Richard Dawkins introduce him in the video was the clincher for me.

This is a quote from Krauss"

“[I]n science we have to be particularly cautious about 'why' questions. When we ask, 'Why?' we usually mean 'How?' If we can answer the latter, that generally suffices for our purposes. For example, we might ask: 'Why is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' but what we really probably mean is, 'How is the Earth 93 million miles from the Sun?' That is, we are interested in what physical processes led to the Earth ending up in its present position. 'Why' implicitly suggests purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

Again he is playing the fool. He deliberately avoids answering the question "why" because that is difficult to answer without making a bigger fool of himself.

So he goes with "how". Why and how are two totally different things.

This is the guy you are putting up on top of a pedestal?

[bluefete]

Yes this is true Quantum physics changes everything.

Here is an example of it so you all will better understand why something comes from nothing in the quantum world its really simple guys.

This easily sums up everything you need to know on why Krauss is right. Something comes from nothing in the quantum world

Krauss does not explain where the quantum wave particle comes from or how it got into existence!

Did it always exists or did it come into existence by itself?

[Habit7]

Brace yourself for personal attacks and your inability to understand.

[bluefete]

Proof here -----> Background radiation is proof of the big bang and observable red shift of neighboring stars is proof that the universe is expanding and therefore had an origin. It is also proof of how old the universe it <----- Proof here

That is proof that the universe had an instantaneous beginning and is expanding. You interpret that proof to the Big Bang. This still inferring preexisting matter, energy and time. This still doesn't prove something coming from nothing.

The only sidesteps I see is to punt to Dawkins, Krauss, quantum physics and other appeals to authority.

Either way, you have not offered any alternatives. I will let the matter with Krauss rest for now as that is one matter that I cannot offer a analogy simplified enough for you to understand and I'm not going to ask you to have "faith" that all the information is in there. I will rather you read it for yourself so that you can argue from an educated position on the subject. At least you admit the proof for the big bang which I already talked about in the religion discussion and showed how the big bang brings to light where the bible is wrong.

Well, i guess those scientists missed the bus on that experiment. ..

Yup. Still a good response though. The just needed to match a few more variables.

Still no proof for intelligent design (must also disprove evolution) or eternal existence of the universe. Not counting this as a sidestep as you both legitimately responded to what I replied. So where are your alternative theories and proof?

So what are you saying then? That everyone is stupid? If there is no proof of intelligent design then we simply cannot be having this discussion.

The logical conclusion would then follow.

[bluefete]

Brace yourself for personal attacks and your inability to understand.

After that Religion thread, I am so used to that by now. You too.

Science is so beautifully simple except when scientists make it difficult to confuse people and maintain their status quo.

[Slartibartfast]

He deliberately avoids answering the question "why" because that is difficult to answer without making a bigger fool of himself.

So he goes with "how". Why and how are two totally different things.

The question "why" is not a concern of science because it can lead back to several possible origins. That is why scientific language is very specific. Consider the following example.

A guy is dead.

Science
How did he die - He bled to death
How did he bleed to death - There wound in his heart
How was his heart wounded - It was punctured with a knife
How was it punctured with a knife - A strong swift stabbing motion was applied to the knife

Not Science
Why did he die - An infinite number of answers that are all equally possible.

It makes no sense asking why if there is no way to find, prove or disprove a purpose. Also, with an infinite number of possibilities you will quickly find yourself in a never ending debate that goes nowhere. Also, you can't use that answer for anything so why waste your time?

Continuing the example

Science
How to stop him from dying like that again - Wear steel plated armour

Not Science
Why to stop him dying? - Because he was a good boy dat never do nuttin wrong
How to stop him from dying - (based on the previous possible answers) An infinite number of answers that will all be circumstantial (eg. don't sleep with a married woman, don't slap a police officer, don't annoy a drug addict). It's just too much effort for no results.

You are clearly grasping at straws if you have to begin arguing semantics.

[bluefete]

He deliberately avoids answering the question "why" because that is difficult to answer without making a bigger fool of himself.

So he goes with "how". Why and how are two totally different things.

The question "why" is not a concern of science because it can lead back to several possible origins. That is why scientific language is very specific. Consider the following example.

A guy is dead.

Science
How did he die - He bled to death
How did he bleed to death - There wound in his heart
How was his heart wounded - It was punctured with a knife
How was it punctured with a knife - A strong swift stabbing motion was applied to the knife

Not Science
Why did he die - An infinite number of answers that are all equally possible.

It makes no sense asking why if there is no way to find, prove or disprove a purpose. Also, with an infinite number of possibilities you will quickly find yourself in a never ending debate that goes nowhere. Also, you can't use that answer for anything so why waste your time?

Continuing the example

Science
How to stop him from dying like that again - Wear steel plated armour

Not Science
Why to stop him dying? - Because he was a good boy dat never do nuttin wrong
How to stop him from dying - (based on the previous possible answers) An infinite number of answers that will all be circumstantial (eg. don't sleep with a married woman, don't slap a police officer, don't annoy a drug addict). It's just too much effort for no results.

You are clearly grasping at straws if you have to begin arguing semantics.

I am arguing the English Language not semantics.

So is that 'why' children are beaten when they ask 'why'? Because their parents do not have any anwsers for them? Maybe they should ask 'how' instead'!

Let me take your point.

How did the universe start? With a big bang!

Why did it start with a big bang and not a small bang? Um, err, aahh, ummmm, I cyah answer dat!!!

[MG Man]

nothing wrong with saying 'I eh know'
not having the answer does not mea the default answer is 'becuz gawwwd'

[Slartibartfast]

So what are you saying then? That everyone is stupid? If there is no proof of intelligent design then we simply cannot be having this discussion.

The logical conclusion would then follow.

My bad, there is proof, but there is also a lot of disproving it very conclusively. Just google it.

Remember the caloric theory of heat also has proof for it. But there is also conclusive disproof.

[bluefete]

nothing wrong with saying 'I eh know'
not having the answer does not mea the default answer is 'becuz gawwwd'

True (I actually agreed with you. Wow).

But it would still be interesting to see the true origins.

[Slartibartfast]

Let me take your point.

How did the universe start? With a big bang!

Why did it start with a big bang and not a small bang? Um, err, aahh, ummmm, I cyah answer dat!!!

lol

Cuz you don't realise size is relative. We are comparing it to us. If it created everything surrounding us then it must be the largest thing in our existence, therefore, compared to us it will be a big bang.

Bring those question all day man. I'll show you how to answer a question while you teach me the proper way to sidestep.

[bluefete]

So what are you saying then? That everyone is stupid? If there is no proof of intelligent design then we simply cannot be having this discussion.

The logical conclusion would then follow.

My bad, there is proof, but there is also a lot of disproving it very conclusively. Just google it.

Remember the caloric theory of heat also has proof for it. But there is also conclusive disproof.

"We can trace the origin of life back a good four and a half billion years, to the very first replicators and their first "cells" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving ... ent_Design

Silly people again. Where did the replicators originate????


"There is, of course, no evidence of design beyond what some people perceive there to be. In addition, given that we have evolved with an innate ability to recognize patterns, it is expected that we will find design all around us, but nothing suggests that anything about it was designed in any way." (Same source as above)

Really? So a tree just evolved into a tree! No design. Just a random occurrence that became a tree.

Likewise a julie mango tree (probably evolved from an avocado tree)

Just like humans are random occurrences from star dust who randomly evolved from apes. No design there at all!

No design in the oceans either. ALL LIFE forms just randomly occurred / happened.

And you all want to make fun of people who believe in a Creator???????????

[bluefete]

Let me take your point.

How did the universe start? With a big bang!

Why did it start with a big bang and not a small bang? Um, err, aahh, ummmm, I cyah answer dat!!!

lol

Cuz you don't realise size is relative. We are comparing it to us. If it created everything surrounding us then it must be the largest thing in our existence, therefore, compared to us it will be a big bang.

Bring those question all day man. I'll show you how to answer a question while you teach me the proper way to sidestep.

Why (there is that word again!) does it have to be so?

Why could it not have been a small bang that started everything and increased from there?

A mustard seed is very small but a mustard tree is huge!!!!

[Slartibartfast]

It's ok... take your time to wrap your head around it.

Edit: Please note that a mustard seed takes a lot from it's surrounding (sunlight for energy, nutrients in soil etc. etc.) The tree isn't just a large mustard seed. The big bang was surrounded by nothingness and therefore had to have everything required to make an entire universe within it.

[MG Man]

so you saying a hydrogen bomb explosion is small because the actual bomb is kinda not so big?

[bluefete]

so you saying a hydrogen bomb explosion is small because the actual bomb is kinda not so big?

Or the other way around!!!



Isn't size relative?

[Slartibartfast]

MG Man look your dildo reach Bring it with the rubber ducky later

[bluefete]

It's ok... take your time to wrap your head around it.

Edit: Please note that a mustard seed takes a lot from it's surrounding (sunlight for energy, nutrients in soil etc. etc.) The tree isn't just a large mustard seed. The big bang was surrounded by nothingness and therefore had to have everything required to make an entire universe within it.

A big bang cannot be surrounded by nothingness. There must be matter for its very existence!!!!

[Slartibartfast]

It's ok... take your time to wrap your head around it.

Edit: Please note that a mustard seed takes a lot from it's surrounding (sunlight for energy, nutrients in soil etc. etc.) The tree isn't just a large mustard seed. The big bang was surrounded by nothingness and therefore had to have everything required to make an entire universe within it.

A big bang cannot be surrounded by nothingness. There must be matter for its very existence!!!!

Now it is extremely interesting that you mentioned that. I'm not being sarcastic. That is actually a realisation that most people don't have. The big bang would have been the biggest explosion to ever exist and yet it would not have made a sound. One could say the big bang did not even go bang. This is because it occurred in a vacuum. Therefore, the sound waves from the bang had no medium to propagate through. Also, the big bang traveled way faster than sound.

However, once the big bang reached you (and you were inside the expanding explosion) there would be a noise and it would be the loudest noise to have ever occurred. So I guess that is where the bang would be.

But they call it a bang because of the fact that it was a huge explosion, not because it literally went "Bang"

As for the rest of stuff... that's just plain incorrect and you are saying that with nothing to back it up so I'm going to ignore that. You can google it.

[bluefete]

It's ok... take your time to wrap your head around it.

Edit: Please note that a mustard seed takes a lot from it's surrounding (sunlight for energy, nutrients in soil etc. etc.) The tree isn't just a large mustard seed. The big bang was surrounded by nothingness and therefore had to have everything required to make an entire universe within it.

A big bang cannot be surrounded by nothingness. There must be matter for its very existence!!!!

Now it is extremely interesting that you mentioned that. I'm not being sarcastic. That is actually a realisation that most people don't have. The big bang would have been the biggest explosion to ever exist and yet it would not have made a sound. One could say the big bang did not even go bang. This is because it occurred in a vacuum. Therefore, the sound waves from the bang had no medium to propagate through. Also, the big bang traveled way faster than sound.

However, once the big bang reached you (and you were inside the expanding explosion) there would be a noise and it would be the loudest noise to have ever occurred. So I guess that is where the bang would be.

But they call it a bang because of the fact that it was a huge explosion, not because it literally went "Bang"

As for the rest of stuff... that's just plain incorrect and you are saying that with nothing to back it up so I'm going to ignore that. You can google it.

Now listen here, Slartibartfast: You just did what you accused me of. Totally ignored the point I was making.

Can you create an explosion out of nothing? Without using any chemicals?

There must have been something around to cause the big bang. I am not concerned with what happened a millisecond after the big bang or how it expanded into space.

I want to know what caused it!!! Don't quote Krauss because he is talking rubbish!

Where did the matter come from that caused the big bang????

[MG Man]

Hawking has ready demonstrated it is possible for something to spontaneously come into existence from nothing

[SMc]

from a massive lab located under a place similar to Switzerland but on a much much larger scale