Irreducible complexity

[Hollie]

You must be joking! Take a slab of slate from a blackboard and see if you can bend or fold it rapidly. You can't, it just factures. Now take a slab and heat it until it glows, now try to bend it. You can. Given enough time, heat, and pressure, rock will flow like molasses.

Again, with the millions of years BS. You have no experiment to make rock flow like molasses if it takes millions of years. More fake science on your part. However, I have Guy Berthault's work and experiments with stratification.

Another charlatan pimping for creation.com.

Why don’t these loons publish their YouTube videos at the the science journal Nature, for example and see how their nonsense stands to peer review?

 

[Hollie]

What's really wrong and stupid is rock, once it becomes rock, can end up flowing like molasses again. I suppose my opposition is saying it liquifies.

We can use Portland cement which contains the compounds belite (Ca2SiO4) and alite (Ca3O·SiO4). When they are mixed with water they form crystals that grow like tiny rock-hard fingers wrapping around the sand and gravel creating concrete. This means that concrete hardens underwater. Concrete doesn’t harden because it dries out. It hardens because it hydrates. Adding more water to concrete will not reverse the chemical reaction.which is liquid rock when it is mixed with water. I don't know any way to turn it back into soft rock once it hardens. It's a one-way process.

Thus, fake science or BS science on my opponents part?

ETA: It's the lie that with millions of years anything is possible including breaking the laws of science, chemistry, and physics. Well, my opponents can continue to believe that fake lying bull, but the nice thing about observational science is that it's true no matter what idiocy one believes.

It’s common practice to attribute the source of your cutting and pasting.

What secret would have allowed the ancient Egyptians to create hydraulic cement (like Portland cement)? | Rebuilding Civilization

 

[james bond]

What I was saying is that you are ignorant of basic physics, and you want to change the science to fit your preordained young world creationism. That doesn't work. Billions of years of the existence of earth, the solar system, and galaxies are consistent with physics. A few thousand years are not.

What basic physics am I ignorant of? I didn't make up any science to explain the young earth. Old earth cannot be demonstrated. Long time cannot be demonstrated. Isn't that part of "faith-based" science? One cannot go back in time or else that violates the laws of physics.

However, I can demonstrate how one can go forward in time. It's observable science.

I already told you in previous posts how creationist ideas are violating science.

I suppose you mean this.

>>BUT, in justifying your beliefs you cannot bandy about the basic laws of physics and change the basic underlying physical constants. These constants (including the speed of light, Planck constant, elementary charge, the fine structure constant, etc.) were measured with accuracies of parts per million to parts per trillion. They are tightly interconnected in the laws of physics.

If you try to change, the "uniformitarianism" of decay rate of isotopes, the physical laws and constants that need to be changed to support your belief will screw up everything else in 100 years of modern physics. I'm sure no Creationist nor physicist would be able to reinvent an alternate self-consistent physics to support the beliefs of the non-uniformitarianism of Creationism.<<



Regarding the physical constants, it fits the fine tuning theory. These are the constants found by secular scientists while gathering evidence for the big bang theory. However, these constants helped their opposition, the creation scientists, because they show that life is rare. It means no aliens. Oops.

The findings screwed up these secular/atheist scientists so bad that they started believing in multiverses, another "faith-based" science belief.

What is interesting to me is NASA now wants to go to Mars as priority to find evidence of life or past life. This is their #1 goal now. I thought previously the top goal was to find other planets for colonization, i.e. become multi-planetary.

I'm not trying to change the decay rate of isotopes. That is constant and part of life. What I said was that the parent-daughter assumptions were wrong and you know it b/c you asked me about it haha.

Uniformitarianism was made up by James Hutton and his pupil Charles Lyell to combat catastrophism. Charles Darwin became a pupil of Lyell. Remember, before the 1850s, catastrophism ruled the day in science. They just didn't want to believe in God because they believed there was no God. They were atheists. This is why today geology isn't in great shape. Neither is biology and zoology. The present is the key to the past doesn't hold up well in observable science.

Finally, it's not observable science that you are referring to, but fake science. Fake science believes in long times that cannot possible be observed. Thus, it uses historical or forensic science, i.e. circumstantial evidence, to make their case. The results such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs are not valid.

Since you think science is fake, why did you ask what laws and constants are involved? You are confused when you think science is faith based. You got it backwards. Since you don't believe science why do you troll in the science and technology forum? There is a religious forum for you.

I turned the tables on you with fine tuning. What about Louis Pasteur showing us that only life begets life.

 

[james bond]

Actually, if it happened rapidly it would fracture. The more slowly it happens the more likely to bend without breaking.

Also, the layer may not have been able to break, if it were totally buried.

No, rock would become brittle, crack, and break into small pieces over time. Look at concrete driveways.

If it is rapid, then it gets molded by the water and bends and curves before it hardens. It's a chemical reaction that causes it to become hard and not drying.

 

[james bond]

The continents are still moving.

I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now. However, the present isn't the key to the past. The past had the catastrophism of the great flood. See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions?

To me, this is what science is about. We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top. However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition. The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore. What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Museums become homages to bullshit.

 

[WinterBorn]

The continents are still moving.

I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now. However, the present isn't the key to the past. The past had the catastrophism of the great flood. See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions?

To me, this is what science is about. We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top. However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition. The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore. What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Museums become homages to bullshit.

If you measure something over and over for many years, and get the same measurements, why would you assume they were different in the past.

What I have seen is ID taking the conclusion and trying to make the facts fit. Scientists are constantly altering their theories when new information comes to light. The way the people and animals migrated in the americas is a prime example. For years the thought was that they came over on the Bering Straight land mass and migrated south. But substantial evidence came to light that S. America had a diverse animal population before it was connected to the N. American continent.

 

[WinterBorn]

The continents are still moving.

I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now. However, the present isn't the key to the past. The past had the catastrophism of the great flood. See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions?

To me, this is what science is about. We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top. However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition. The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore. What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Museums become homages to bullshit.

There are problems with the Flood geology.

There are fossilized trees that are upright. Flood geologists claim that this is because of the weight of the root ball and the dirt at the base. But trees caught in floods now always seem to on their sides.

There is not enough water on the planet to cover it, as it is now formed. And if, as flood geologists claim, the lands were lower and more even, the water would have covered it without a flood. Which brings us to the idea that there were huge reserves of water underground. There is no evidence of this. It simply provides a convenient answer to a problem. In order for worldwide underground reservoirs to have existed, there would have had to be no fissures or cracks in the entire surface of the Earth.

Noah's Ark would not have been nearly big enough. It would be a huge stretch to claim it contained all the known animals of the time. But when you add in all the species on other continents, there is no way they could be contained within a boat that is 510 feet long.

And there are desert fossils that are impossible to explain using the flood geology.

 

[Hollie]

What I was saying is that you are ignorant of basic physics, and you want to change the science to fit your preordained young world creationism. That doesn't work. Billions of years of the existence of earth, the solar system, and galaxies are consistent with physics. A few thousand years are not.

What basic physics am I ignorant of? I didn't make up any science to explain the young earth. Old earth cannot be demonstrated. Long time cannot be demonstrated. Isn't that part of "faith-based" science? One cannot go back in time or else that violates the laws of physics.

However, I can demonstrate how one can go forward in time. It's observable science.

I already told you in previous posts how creationist ideas are violating science.

I suppose you mean this.

>>BUT, in justifying your beliefs you cannot bandy about the basic laws of physics and change the basic underlying physical constants. These constants (including the speed of light, Planck constant, elementary charge, the fine structure constant, etc.) were measured with accuracies of parts per million to parts per trillion. They are tightly interconnected in the laws of physics.

If you try to change, the "uniformitarianism" of decay rate of isotopes, the physical laws and constants that need to be changed to support your belief will screw up everything else in 100 years of modern physics. I'm sure no Creationist nor physicist would be able to reinvent an alternate self-consistent physics to support the beliefs of the non-uniformitarianism of Creationism.<<



Regarding the physical constants, it fits the fine tuning theory. These are the constants found by secular scientists while gathering evidence for the big bang theory. However, these constants helped their opposition, the creation scientists, because they show that life is rare. It means no aliens. Oops.

The findings screwed up these secular/atheist scientists so bad that they started believing in multiverses, another "faith-based" science belief.

What is interesting to me is NASA now wants to go to Mars as priority to find evidence of life or past life. This is their #1 goal now. I thought previously the top goal was to find other planets for colonization, i.e. become multi-planetary.

I'm not trying to change the decay rate of isotopes. That is constant and part of life. What I said was that the parent-daughter assumptions were wrong and you know it b/c you asked me about it haha.

Uniformitarianism was made up by James Hutton and his pupil Charles Lyell to combat catastrophism. Charles Darwin became a pupil of Lyell. Remember, before the 1850s, catastrophism ruled the day in science. They just didn't want to believe in God because they believed there was no God. They were atheists. This is why today geology isn't in great shape. Neither is biology and zoology. The present is the key to the past doesn't hold up well in observable science.

Finally, it's not observable science that you are referring to, but fake science. Fake science believes in long times that cannot possible be observed. Thus, it uses historical or forensic science, i.e. circumstantial evidence, to make their case. The results such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs are not valid.

Since you think science is fake, why did you ask what laws and constants are involved? You are confused when you think science is faith based. You got it backwards. Since you don't believe science why do you troll in the science and technology forum? There is a religious forum for you.

I turned the tables on you with fine tuning. What about Louis Pasteur showing us that only life begets life.

The reason ID'iot creationists publish YouTube videos is because the creation ministries do no resesrch and have predefined conclusions toward supernaturalism.

Regarding your Pasteur claim, that is another falsification of the creation ministries.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currentlyspontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.



It's just a shame that ID'creationists must rely on lies and misrepresentation to further their agenda.

 

[james bond]

The continents are still moving.

I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now. However, the present isn't the key to the past. The past had the catastrophism of the great flood. See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions?

To me, this is what science is about. We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top. However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition. The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore. What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Museums become homages to bullshit.

If you measure something over and over for many years, and get the same measurements, why would you assume they were different in the past.

What I have seen is ID taking the conclusion and trying to make the facts fit. Scientists are constantly altering their theories when new information comes to light. The way the people and animals migrated in the americas is a prime example. For years the thought was that they came over on the Bering Straight land mass and migrated south. But substantial evidence came to light that S. America had a diverse animal population before it was connected to the N. American continent.

Your example, continental drift, shows that it was different in the past. This is geology and it shows James Hutton and Charles Lyell were wrong about uniformitarianism. Atheists are usually wrong.

 

[captkaos]

Hey, dipshitzky. Can you tell us which part you can remove and still have a car? Apparently not. Proof of irreducible complexity. You lose. Thanks for playing

The head rest ! I win!

 

[Hollie]

The continents are still moving.

I suppose you mean continents are drifting slowly over time now. However, the present isn't the key to the past. The past had the catastrophism of the great flood. See how our worldviews makes us reach vastly different conclusions?

To me, this is what science is about. We get different arguments and the one with the best theory comes out on top. However, today the secular/atheist scientists changed the rules of science and eliminated their main opposition. The creation scientists cannot not do peer-reviews anymore. What happens is fake science, wrong theories, and intelligent people who question evolution such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs. Museums become homages to bullshit.

If you measure something over and over for many years, and get the same measurements, why would you assume they were different in the past.

What I have seen is ID taking the conclusion and trying to make the facts fit. Scientists are constantly altering their theories when new information comes to light. The way the people and animals migrated in the americas is a prime example. For years the thought was that they came over on the Bering Straight land mass and migrated south. But substantial evidence came to light that S. America had a diverse animal population before it was connected to the N. American continent.

View attachment 264260

Your example, continental drift, shows that it was different in the past. This is geology and it shows James Hutton and Charles Lyell were wrong about uniformitarianism. Atheists are usually wrong.

All of that happened just a few thousand years ago?

ID'iot creationists are funny.

 

[Wuwei]

What basic physics am I ignorant of? I didn't make up any science to explain the young earth. Old earth cannot be demonstrated. Long time cannot be demonstrated.

No, you didn't make up new science. You simply follow the young earth religion that is totally incompatible with current well established science.

Regarding the physical constants, it fits the fine tuning theory.

Yes, the "fine tuning" is a remarkable concept. If you want to say God did it, I really don't care. But that has nothing to do with proof of a young earth.

The findings screwed up these secular/atheist scientists so bad that they started believing in multiverses

Multiverses is a hypothesis that some cosmologists are toying but is not widely taken seriously. It did not screw up scientists.

I'm not trying to change the decay rate of isotopes. That is constant and part of life. What I said was that the parent-daughter assumptions were wrong and you know it b/c you asked me about it haha.

You are claiming the parent-daughter assumptions are wrong for countless thousands of radiographic dating, and they all point to a young earth. That is absurd.

Finally, it's not observable science that you are referring to, but fake science. Fake science believes in long times that cannot possible be observed. Thus, it uses historical or forensic science, i.e. circumstantial evidence, to make their case. The results such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs are not valid.

Young earth science is fake science that is incompatible with the billions of years the universe, stars, and planets have been in existence.

.

 

[james bond]

No, you didn't make up new science. You simply follow the young earth religion that is totally incompatible with current well established science.

You claimed that I was ignorant of basic physics and then could not explain what it was. That makes you wrong. As for "young earth religion," it's actually old science from before the 1850s. It was the evos with uniformitarianism and evolution who made up the new so-called "established science" which is really fake science.

Yes, the "fine tuning" is a remarkable concept. If you want to say God did it, I really don't care. But that has nothing to do with proof of a young earth.

Fine tuning means aliens don't exist. There goes you evolution happens in outer space and other planets. There goes panspermia.

Multiverses is a hypothesis that some cosmologists are toying but is not widely taken seriously. It did not screw up scientists.

This is more wrongness. It is taken very seriously now. Your best physicists advocate it when there isn't any evidence for it.

You are claiming the parent-daughter assumptions are wrong for countless thousands of radiographic dating, and they all point to a young earth. That is absurd.

If the initial assumptions are wrong, then all of it is wrong. It's just absurd to you because people think RD is real science just because it was established by secular/atheist scientists. It's fake science and the Earth and universe are not billions of years old.

Young earth science is fake science that is incompatible with the billions of years the universe, stars, and planets have been in existence.

We know it is real science because it follows the scientific method. The scientific method was created by creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. What you claim is not observable science and does not follow the scientific method. For example, you can't observe long-time or how anything can come into existence from nothing. You can't show monkeys that have become bipedal. Even bears do a better job of that. That's what makes evolution and evolutionary thinking fake. The only thing I use is for now is to argue against GMO foods and methods haha.

 

[Wuwei]

You claimed that I was ignorant of basic physics and then could not explain what it was. That makes you wrong. As for "young earth religion," it's actually old science from before the 1850s. It was the evos with uniformitarianism and evolution who made up the new so-called "established science" which is really fake science.

You said decay rates could change over the ages. I proved you wrong according to modern physics. But you seem to relish classical physics before 1850. And you also reject the countless experiments that support modern physics. If you think physics is fake why do you come to the science and technology forum to troll.

Fine tuning means aliens don't exist. There goes you evolution happens in outer space and other planets. There goes panspermia.

That has nothing to do with the young earth argument.

This is more wrongness. It is taken very seriously now.

Multiverses are certainly an unproven hypotheses. Not all scientists take it seriously. So what.

If the initial assumptions are wrong, then all of it is wrong. It's just absurd to you because people think RD is real science just because it was established by secular/atheist scientists. It's fake science and the Earth and universe are not billions of years old.

You are thinking the vast majority of radiographic datings from the vast majority of daughter isotope measurements are contaminated all in the same way to yield a 6,000 year old earth. There are several different isotope methods, and you think all of them were contaminated. That's still absurd.

We know it is real science because it follows the scientific method. The scientific method was created by creation scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. What you claim is not observable science and does not follow the scientific method. For example, you can't observe long-time or how anything can come into existence from nothing. You can't show monkeys that have become bipedal. Even bears do a better job of that. That's what makes evolution and evolutionary thinking fake. The only thing I use is for now is to argue against GMO foods and methods haha.

If you want to insist all the galaxies, stars and planets in the universe are less than 6,000 years old you are truly naive.


.

 

[WinterBorn]

One of the things I noticed was the condemnation of the use of radioactive isotopes for dating materials. This was said because they cannot be used for dating anything beyond 50,000 years.

Oddly, the same people who claim the earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old, think a method of dating anything under 50,000 years is meaningless. It certainly disproves the young earth theories.