Blowing Up Darwin

[Rigby5]

"Matter has always existed; it never had a beginning. You have to accept that possibility if you preach the same thing about God."


Einstein proved the very opposite.


That's the reason for the Big Bang, now accepted by all scientists......just not you.



AI Overview
Learn more

In the context of the Big Bang Theory, "redshift" refers to the observation that light from distant galaxies appears shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, indicating that these galaxies are moving away from us, which is considered strong evidence for an expanding universe as predicted by the Big Bang theory; essentially, as space itself expands, the light waves stretch out, causing the redshift.



Prior to that there was nothing.....no matter of any sort.


Explanation?


God.

Wrong.
No one thinks nothing existed before the big bang.
One theory is that the universe simply goes through a continual cycle of expansion and collapse back into an infinitely small space, that expands again with another big bang.
Another theory is that there is a much larger universe and that we are just trapped inside a small black hole created by a big bang in that larger universe.

God explains nothing because then there would have to be evidence of where god came from, exists, and a consistent pattern of godlike goals.

 

[Rigby5]

Darwin's "theory" has a lot of science behind it. Some of it isn't even theory. It's not even what many portray to be.

Creation does adapt to it's surroundings. That is what Darwin argued. A moth can over time adopt colors that helps it to blend in to it's surroundings. We know this can happen.

Where this is no actual verifiable science is where the moth ever becomes anything other than moth.

Wrong.
We know all life was originally aquatic, but some evolved to be on land.
But then a few, like whales and dolphins, clearly reverted back to living in water.
The bone evidence of feet and hands in whales and dolphins are absolute proof of evolutionary changes.

 

[Rigby5]

If the earth was as old as they say it is, we'd all be living in tunnels through bones.

First of all, when you look at limestone, we clearly are "living in tunnels through bones".
But bones also rapidly disintegrate unless the conditions are just right.

 

[Rigby5]

Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”

Wrong.
If all life originated from a single organism, the odds of ever finding any evidence of that would be zero.
Most life is not fossilized after death, so leaves no evidence at all.
Nor it is at all necessary that all life came from a single organism, since inanimate chemicals produce life spontaneously all the time.

 

[pknopp]

Wrong.
We know all life was originally aquatic, but some evolved to be on land.

Turtles all the way down. Prove it.

But then a few, like whales and dolphins, clearly reverted back to living in water.
The bone evidence of feet and hands in whales and dolphins are absolute proof of evolutionary changes.

Or design.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As recent developments have proven that the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander, it is time to highlight their similar attempts at the basis of Western Civilization….religion.
And the use of Darwin’s theory to attack same.

In this thread, an interview that Piers Morgan had with Dr. Stephen Meyer, about the actual science behind Charles Darwin’s theory (spoiler: there is none)​

When it comes to evolution, politics is more prominent than science. And with that in mind, .....a simple rule that will clarify the place Darwin’s Theory holds:
Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

• One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

• I will provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and quotes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• 
  
• Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

This is the interior of a single living cell

Evolutionist tell us that it’s just a combination of random chemicals

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong.
If all life originated from a single organism, the odds of ever finding any evidence of that would be zero.
Most life is not fossilized after death, so leaves no evidence at all.
Nor it is at all necessary that all life came from a single organism, since inanimate chemicals produce life spontaneously all the time.

“…since inanimate chemicals produce life spontaneously all the time.”

Are you sure?

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.

Sigh. Did you have to revive this idiotic thread?

 

[scruffy]

View attachment 1129068

This is the interior of a single living cell

Evolutionist tell us that it’s just a combination of random chemicals

No evolutionist ever said anything like that.

Your ignorance is in full display.

4 billion years of selection for survival advantage does not equate with "random".

It equates with an attractor that is distinctly non-random.

Survival advantage can be quantified, and visualized.

Survival advantage is the "guiding hand" in evolution. No design is required.

There is some very rigorous mathematics around this concept. Maybe you should go study it, before flapping your mouth.

Examples of stochastic attractors include: Navier-Stokes equations, reaction-diffusion systems, the Burgers equation for shock dynamics, stochastic lattice systems, the Marcus equations for financial markets... the list is way too long for a short post.

For the evolution of stochastic systems in time, there is an important concept called a "pullback attractor". You can read about it here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022039624001724

Educate yourself. This is the 21st century.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You ask that because you don't know what Marxism is.
Marxism is just the realization that since large factories can wipe out cottage industries through their economy of scale, that clearly the wealthy elite will have inherent monopolies.

Karl Marx suggested that we could prevent these abusive monopolies through shared community investment in the means of production, but we also found that anti-trust laws, unions, and labor laws also prevent abuses.

Anyone suggesting Marxism is at all in conflict with democratic republics, is just confused by propaganda.

YOU do not know what marxism is

You are a filthy liar who always gets it wrong

Marx said nothing of the sort concerning monopolices and instead demanded tyranny slavery and genocide which is what all communist nations do

Marx said njo such thing yoy lying sack of shit

Marxism is ALWAYS in conflict with republics and democracy


YOU are the stupid and uneducated FOOL brainwashed by propagand

 

[scruffy]

Or design.

 

[scruffy]

 

[scruffy]

Meet the creature that digests its own brain.

When it's young, it attaches to a rock.

Once it's found a rock, it no longer needs a brain.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No evolutionist ever said anything like that.

Your ignorance is in full display.

4 billion years of selection for survival advantage does not equate with "random".

It equates with an attractor that is distinctly non-random.

Survival advantage can be quantified, and visualized.

Survival advantage is the "guiding hand" in evolution. No design is required.

There is some very rigorous mathematics around this concept. Maybe you should go study it, before flapping your mouth.

Examples of stochastic attractors include: Navier-Stokes equations, reaction-diffusion systems, the Burgers equation for shock dynamics, stochastic lattice systems, the Marcus equations for financial markets... the list is way too long for a short post.

For the evolution of stochastic systems in time, there is an important concept called a "pullback attractor". You can read about it here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022039624001724

Educate yourself. This is the 21st century.

The stuff they get you to believe is amazing

Assuming the Earth started 4 Billion years is totally insufficient time to assemble a fully functioning cell with just chemical compounds

Have you ever once seen "Life" be produced by combining chemicals? Do you think that's possible?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a Theory

 

[scruffy]

The stuff they get you to believe is amazing

Yeah. It's amazing stuff. The universe is an amazing place.

Assuming the Earth started 4 Billion years is totally insufficient time to assemble a fully functioning cell with just chemical compounds

And yet, it happened. Your assertions are ignorant. You should study up. Proteins and cell membranes take about 24 hours from methane, ammonia, and sunlight. (Maybe throw in a lightning bolt if you can't wait that long).

Have you ever once seen "Life" be produced by combining chemicals? Do you think that's possible?

Of course. I see it all the time. I'm a biophysicist, I'm at the interface between physics and cell biology.

More than that, I'm a data scientist who studies sequence construction in DNA and RNA. I know a lot about biophysical attractors. That's what changed your probabilities by 40 orders of magnitude. Bernoulli assumptions are completely naive, that's not at all how life works.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah. It's amazing stuff. The universe is an amazing place.



And yet, it happened. Your assertions are ignorant. You should study up. Proteins and cell membranes take about 24 hours from methane, ammonia, and sunlight. (Maybe throw in a lightning bolt if you can't wait that long).



Of course. I see it all the time. I'm a biophysicist, I'm at the interface between physics and cell biology.

More than that, I'm a data scientist who studies sequence construction in DNA and RNA. I know a lot about biophysical attractors. That's what changed your probabilities by 40 orders of magnitude. Bernoulli assumptions are completely naive, that's not at all how life works.

40 orders of magnitude? Wow

What are the odds that 2,000 proteins spontaneously and perfectly assemble into a functional cell?

It’s possible that energy and awareness come first and this physical “reality” is the residue

 

[scruffy]

40 orders of magnitude? Wow

What are the odds that 2,000 proteins spontaneously and perfectly assemble into a functional cell?

The probability approaches 1.

It’s possible that energy and awareness come first and this physical “reality” is the residue

Define "awareness".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The probability approaches 1.



Define "awareness".

If there was only 1 correct shuffle of 52 playing cards, the odds against are 8.0658e67 - 1

That's just 52 variables

A single cell is infinitely far more complex than a deck of cards

Do you see the problem?

 

[scruffy]

If there was only 1 correct shuffle of 52 playing cards, the odds against are 8.0658e67 - 1

That's just 52 variables

A single cell is infinitely far more complex than a deck of cards

Do you see the problem?

Please refer to the bottom of post # 1656.