&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
Einstein was known to have bouts of stupidity. He refused to follow the implications of his own theories whenever they classed with what he wanted to believe
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.☭proletarian☭;1793939 said:One post above this, you say that ST can be totally summed up in E=MC^2, that E=MC^2 IS ST written in a single equation. Do try to make up your mind.
Those are YOUR words not mine, you don't speak for me!
See your last post
You said that E=MC^2 was the whole of ST, written in 5 characters (when written using actual superscript)
Your words yet again, not mine.
Yes, there was. Else it would have been unverifiable/untestable and thus not a valid theory. It just hadn't been done yet. It was clear how it could be tested; someone just had to design and carry out an experiment meeting the requisite criteria.
You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.☭proletarian☭;1795005 said:Those are YOUR words, you have been challenged to show where I used the word "JUST" and you have failed to produce. No matter how many times you repeat your words they never become mine.
And the THEORETICAL formula was verified for the FIRST time 25 years after it was proposed.
The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.
You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.☭proletarian☭;1795005 said:The formula itself cannot be theoretical and I have repeatedly shown where you said E-MC^2 is all the whole of ST written in a single equation. Your dishonesty (or is just stupidity?) is astounding.
i cant but comment again on the religious-esque fervor in the science-believer community... all while majikmyst looks on hacking up it up with his need to call theory with verified consequences (not verified theory, guys) a FACT.
Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
You have shown no such thing as those are YOUR words and YOUR words alone. And Einstein himself considered the formula a conjecture, so he must be stupid or dishonest too. I'm in good company.
i cant but comment again on the religious-esque fervor in the science-believer community... all while majikmyst looks on hacking up it up with his need to call theory with verified consequences (not verified theory, guys) a FACT.
I am not sure how to respond?? Either you have no clue what the word theory means or you are making false claims about the people that do?? Which of those theories is correct??
It has been explained over and over and over and over and over in this thread how a theory is both a theory and a fact..
So here is a really short version.. Gravity is a reality and a fact that I am sure none here would deny.. It is also a theory as there are many questions about it's relationship with the universe, How all the planets interact with eachother, how the galaxy interacts with it, black holes, why can it trap even light, and so many other questions that make gravity a theory..
Evolution is fact, but it also a theory.. Gravity is fact, but it is also a theory..
E=MC^2 is fact, but it is also a theory..
The bottom line here is that many people haven't done any research on any of the topics above and can't grasp the full picture.. Are you one of those Antagon??
Why does mankind share 99% of our DNA with a common house plant??
How much DNA do plants share with humans?
That fact alone makes evolution a fact as well.. The only way that all living things would share so much DNA is we all evolved from the same source.. Which in fact we did.. Not Adam either.. From singled celled organisms in the ocean millions of years ago..
Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
Do you mean, us coming from an ape?
I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....bottom line, science still does not know...
If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.
The progression of plant life to sea life to birds and animals on the ground is the same progression that evolution or science is now saying.... God did not say man was created first in Genesis Missourian...he gave a general description of the order of events...and that order of events is being theorized and proven by science daily.... science is not evil, evolution is not evil and does not go against God in my book....science is proving God was/is correct (once they get it right and factual)....and that's just how I view it.
genesis 1 is evolution.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
Do you mean, us coming from an ape?
I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....
If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.
☭proletarian☭;1798804 said:Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
Do you mean, us coming from an ape?
We are apes. IN fact, we're great apes. Thanks for showing you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I don't believe such and science no longer is saying such, as they did when i was in school...now science is saying we had a common ancestor but not saying we evolved from chimps or apes anymore....
It never did, dumbass.If you read Genesis with an open mind, the order or progression of the creation story is quite accurate and fits with what science is now trying to prove.
Plants before the sun? Males (wich are incapable of reproducing without females) before females (which can reproduce without males)?
Why are you people so stupid?
Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
Evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution...one species evolving into another species like fish to mammals is junk science.
You all believe it because you've been told if you don't you'll be ridiculed.
Yet not one of you could explain it without a cut and paste.
That's blind faith.
At least we're in the religion forum.
Can anyone explain how macro-evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.
man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.
Well said, Care. The only reason anyone thinks or thought that science and/or the Theory of Evolution is evil is because the church, Catholic Church I believe, took the stand that the Bible should be literally translated and left no room for the interpretation presented by Darwin and those who followed his line of thinking later. As I have always said, I think there is room for both ideas. Evolution does not destroy the possibility that God began it all and neither does the creation account in the Bible preclude the facts presented by science about evolution.
I believe it is a leap, however, to go from "dog" to whale. I'm not saying it did not happen or it could not happen, rather I am saying that it takes more of a leap to go from dog to whale than it does to go from Eohippus to horse.
genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.
man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.
And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?
There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.
I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.
genesis 1 is evolution. there was no twinkle of the nose and everything from soup to nuts created at the same time....by God.
man was not created in the same time period as plant life, or multi cell organisms at the same time as single cell organisms, and the birds in the air were not created at the same time as the fish in the sea. I do not believe there is anything in the Creation story of Genesis 1 that eliminates the evolution or the progression of life on earth.....the story of evolution is described in the first book of the Bible, the first passages of the first chapter in Genesis.... open your minds.
And you believed that all happened in seven days and that woman was created from the rib of man?
There is nothing inherent to evolutionary theory that states either of those. I understand the Christian apologist movement's need to intellectualize Genesis to fit with the overwhelming scientific data that is evolutionary theory, but your statement is a little bit of stretch.
I don't have a problem with Christian Apologetics either. I really enjoy reading C.S. Lewis.
no, i don't believe for one nano second that this happened in seven, 24 hour days! I thought i was clear by using the term, ''proverbial'' before the word day...at least in my later post?