Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I hope you recover well and quickly.I'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums. There just isn't enough challenging atheist views here. When we can't discuss stuff at a higher level because one side cannot answer my questions, then I know I am talking with people with an agenda and are probably ignorant about science. They just go through the motions.
Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.
Their thinking is based on debunked theories.
Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?
Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?
You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?
That is the point, they claim the saw them.
Post their claim, so we can discuss.
A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.
Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?
The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body,
Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.
Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.
All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.
You don't think black holes have been observed?
If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.
Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.
This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.
Why is relativity a dead theory?
The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.
Eddington committed fraud? Show me.
Toddsterpatriot,
I was out for a while, but I didn't forget you made me some questions.
Their thinking is based on debunked theories.Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?
The theory of the Sun orbiting around earth has been debunked.
Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?
You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?
No.
That is the point, they claim the saw them.
Post their claim, so we can discuss.
Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things. Read it for yourself.
A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.
Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?
Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh
The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body,
Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.
You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes. Those imaginary bodies are assumed to have the particles frozen, without motion.
Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.
All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.
You don't think black holes have been observed?
Of course they don't exist. The whole thing is just fraud.
If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.
Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.
No, because dwarf stars have particles in motion.
This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.
Why is relativity a dead theory?
Physically time doesn't exist.
The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.
Eddington committed fraud? Show me.
Book "Einstein's Luck" (which name is a parody for the words of loony Hawking saying that relativity validation was "sheer luck")
In this book you will read step by step the whole whereabouts of the expeditions, the problems taking plaques from the eclipse, the results favoring the prediction of Newton, the actions of Eddington to diminish the plaques favoring Newton and even making make ups to the plates to validate at all cost the prediction of Einstein.
Further than this explanation, how other expeditions found both predictions (newton and Einstein) as invalid... but... but as the author is also a relativist, he says that even when the validation because the eclipse results was not justified at all, that other kind of experiments seem to validate the theory after all.
You will notice that this science historian, Waller, wrote the book to show the huge mistakes in science history.
Now well, besides that the eclipse plaques invalidated the theory of relativity, I can easily point you one by one any other claim made to validate that good for nothing theory.
So make your list, and I will show you that such a list in a piece of paper is not even worthy as toilet paper.
So you want to "discuss stuff at a higher level" from where you areI'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums
Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.
Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.
They lied about detecting those molecules?
Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh
I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?
You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.
You don't know much about the science of black holes.
So you want to "discuss stuff at a higher level" from where you areI'm going to be taking an extended leave from USMB, the S&T, and R&E forums
Anyway, good luck and ta ta for now.
intellectually ? I would suggest you finish middle school then come back and we'll go from there.
The Mormon school for douchebag suits doesn't count.I bet any amount you want that I have higher degrees than you.
Anyway, you don't have much in your posts and up in your brain.
Its in the article, claiming they detected molecules which on earth are found in living things.
They lied about detecting those molecules?
But are also found in organic matter without life. Duuuhhhh
Not all car collisions cause deaths... duuuhhhh
I agree. What does that have to do with your "collision causes light" claim?
Then, not all particles collisions cause light. Comprende?
You don't know much about that fantasy of black holes.
You don't know much about the science of black holes.
Ha, I dance the Macarena over that fantasy of black holes.
The science I study, the new scientific discoveries I have made, and the whole discussions I am into, the whole are based solely in real physical evidence.
On your side you are defending superfluous imaginations invented by several dudes who never understood reality.
-
The Mormon school for douchebag suits doesn't count.I bet any amount you want that I have higher degrees than you.
Anyway, you don't have much in your posts and up in your brain.
View attachment 307811 At this point in time no one can prove or disprove whether there is life on another planet. You can debate this until the moon finally crashes in our planet; but by then, who will really care?
What I do find fascinating is the diversity of life on our planet.
We have “animals”
We have “plants”
We have “birds”
We have “fish”
We have “arthropods”
We have “coelenterates”
And we have “insects”
View attachment 307812
The above will outlive us all
wait, there are also viruses & bacteria too
My bet is the DNA from all these life forms have more in common than not.
And none of them evolved from the cooling molten crust of this planet.
in my view of things -
We do now. We did not always. The theory of evolution explains why that is.We have “animals”
We have “plants”
We have “birds”
We have “fish”
We have “arthropods”
We have “coelenterates”
My mother told me that same thing when I was twelve years oldYou are terribly ignorant.
-I am so greatful to have come across you & your post.We have Ferdi's paradox, Drake equation, the great filter
Ok, if you say so, and more to w there is no life elsewhere.
-Ok, if you say soMoreover, atheist scientist died without knowing.
-Ok, if you say soIf there was life elsewhere, we would've found it
-Ok, if you say soor have been contacted by intelligent life by now.
-Ok, if you say soMoreover, it's not the DNA that is supposed to be common that makes the difference
-Ok, if you say so, but the molecules. DNA is fairly common.
-Now you have really hurt my feelings [::}Thus, you can be written off as ignorant.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg or was it the rooster that came first-?We do now. We did not always. The theory of evolution explains why that is.
-
