Scientists Criticize Evolution

[Rigby5]

Yes, there was no big bang, but a supernatural being as a cause to start spacetime and the universe. I'm glad you're getting smarter as the atheists had to make up the "big bang" in order to do it.

There has to be a big bang, as we can detect the current expansion and movement of everything in the universe, and can trace it all back to a single expansion, which we call the big bang.

 

[ding]

That is EXACTLY what one would expect.
When a species is successful, they will be in great abundance, and will appear to be in stasis.
It is only when a species is NOT successful, that numbers are very low, where there has to be lots of inbreeding, that allows for any significant evolution.

When there is evolutionary change, that is because of inbreeding from near failure.
In which case the number of fossil remains are going to be extremely low, too low for anyone to likely find.

That wasn't what Darwin expected.

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There has to be a big bang, as we can detect the current expansion and movement of everything in the universe, and can trace it all back to a single expansion, which we call the big bang.

Yep. We even took a picture of it.

 

[james bond]

You know nothing of science other than what creationer quacks told you.

All I have to know is some evilution (atheist science and LIE) and my creation science to win. Now, if you'd have some evidence or science experiment using artificial selection, then that would make me think twice. I never had to think twice here EVER.

In real life, one may come across a child or young science person, even a relative I like, who BELIEVES in evilution so that makes me sad.

 

[Hollie]

All I have to know is some evilution (atheist science and LIE) and my creation science to win. Now, if you'd have some evidence or science experiment using artificial selection, then that would make me think twice. I never had to think twice here EVER.

In real life, one may come across a child or young science person, even a relative I like, who BELIEVES in evilution so that makes me sad.

It's funny how Flat Earthers announce they won something.

Are the photographs from space showing a spherical planet really a conspiracy?

 

[james bond]

Yep. We even took a picture of it.

Its cause was kinda hokey. Your scientists started saying it was singularity or an infinitely dense and infinitely hot point. Your scientist, Edwin Hubble, noticed the expansion. It wasn't until later that I discovered "singularity" was a term the creationists came up with by Father Georges Lemaitre lol.

 

[james bond]

It's funny how Flat Earthers announce they won something.

Are the photographs from space showing a spherical planet really a conspiracy?

That's the way I started looking at it from being on the forum since an eternal life means everything. It started as everything, but now we have a universe with only a spiritual creator.

What's hilarious is you started looking at creationists and me as Flat Earthers. It is your small joke of a lie. The things you come up with.

 

[Hollie]

That's the way I started looking at it from being on the forum since an eternal life means everything. It started as everything, but now we have a universe with only a spiritual creator.

What's hilarious is you started looking at creationists and me as Flat Earthers. It is your small joke of a lie. The things you come up with.

Being a Flat Earther, I give you the credit you deserve.

 

[Hollie]

Its cause was kinda hokey. Your scientists started saying it was singularity or an infinitely dense and infinitely hot point. Your scientist, Edwin Hubble, noticed the expansion. It wasn't until later that I discovered "singularity" was a term the creationists came up with by Father Georges Lemaitre lol.

There is no such thing as a singularity. There is a point where mathematics reach a null hypothesis when attempting to resolve equations.

Are you again attaching your creationism label to people who never identified as such?

That's really dishonest.

 

[james bond]

Being a Flat Earther, I give you the credit you deserve.

I guess I rather be a FE'er than a loser. You're prolly my fave critic, but a loser nevertheless.

 

[james bond]

There is no such thing as a singularity. There is a point where mathematics reach a null hypothesis when attempting to resolve equations.

Are you again attaching your creationism label to people who never identified as such?

That's really dishonest.

Tell that to NASA. You can't have infinite anything in reality. It's just hypothetical.

"Singularity - a geometric point with no dimensions where the laws of physics break down. It is a theoretical point of zero volume and infinite density."

The Anatomy of Black Holes - Page 28

To creationists, it's the end of the world and time, a meeting with you know who.

 

[james bond]

There has to be a big bang, as we can detect the current expansion and movement of everything in the universe, and can trace it all back to a single expansion, which we call the big bang.

You and the atheists don't know, but creation scientists know the cause.

What we see out there are the four dimensions with the fourth being spacetime. It means the past is out there somewhere if the past does exist in reality.

 

[Hollie]

Tell that to NASA. You can't have infinite anything in reality. It's just hypothetical.

"Singularity - a geometric point with no dimensions where the laws of physics break down. It is a theoretical point of zero volume and infinite density."

The Anatomy of Black Holes - Page 28

To creationists, it's the end of the world and time, a meeting with you know who.

Precisely what I wrote, "where the laws of physics break down."

There are no conceived gods who would approve of your behavior.

 

[james bond]

Precisely what I wrote, "where the laws of physics break down."

There are no conceived gods who would approve of your behavior.

I would think when we all meet our Maker, then the laws of physics break down. Who can explain a global flood or a global fire in the sky happening?

 

[Hollie]

I would think when we all meet our Maker, then the laws of physics break down. Who can explain a global flood or a global fire in the sky happening?

Who can explain what never took place?

 

[badger2]

That's the way I started looking at it from being on the forum since an eternal life means everything. It started as everything, but now we have a universe with only a spiritual creator.

What's hilarious is you started looking at creationists and me as Flat Earthers. It is your small joke of a lie. The things you come up with.

The desire for eternal life is what separates traditional atheists from we radical atheists. The latter can best explain the pathology that is the desire for eternal life. That is why you can be boycotted and exposed simultaneously in this thread.

'The appeal to an instance beyond temporality is salient in both Totality and Infinity and Otherwise Than Being. In Totality and Infinity, Levinas holds out the promise of a "messianic peace," which is to abolish "the ontology of war." This eschatological vision quite literally projects an overcoming of time, to which I will return in the next chapter. Here I need only to point out that the messianic "triumph," according to Levinas, will put an end to the destructive forces of time by "converting" the temporal into the eternal (285/261). In fact, such a closure is necessary for his doctrine of the Good beyond being. As Levinas asserts in Otherwise Than Being, "the Good as the infinite has no other" since "nothing escapes its goodness." (187n8/13).

Hence, to read Levinas against himself one must be vigilant regarding how two radically different notions of "alterity," "transcendence," and "infinity" are at work in his text. The infinite alterity of diachronic temporality is incompatible with the infinite alterity of the Good beyond being. In "Violence and Metaphysics" Derrida pursues this argument by drawing on Hegel's distinction between negative and positive infinity.

The concept of (negative infinity [italics]) names a process of displacement without end. The classical example comes from mathematics, where no number can be the greatest but is always superseded by another number, which in turn is superseded by yet another number, and so on. In Science of Logic, Hegel provides a general definition of such negative infinity by analyzing it as intrinsic to temporal finitude. As Hegel demonstrates, the finite is an "incessant ceasing-to-be" that prevents it from ever being in itself and thus opens the "relation to an other (250).

Finite relationality necessarily entails a negative infinity since none of the terms can be absolute; each is always transcended by another finitude, which in turn is transcended by another finitude, and so on. For Hegel, such negative infinity is a "spurious infinity (schlecte Unendliche). The movement that is driven by the negative infinity of time is rather a process of self-actualization, which is governed by the true infinity of the Notion. The Notion is positive infinity, which is completely in itself and thereby sublates spatial limitation and temporal alteration. By negating the negation of time, "the image of true infinity, bent back upon itself, becomes the (circle[it.]), the line which has reached itself, which is closed and wholly present, without (beginning [i.]) and (end [it.]).
....
The idea of a positive infinity is precisely the idea of a totality that is not limited by a relation to something other than itself and thus abolishes alterity. Derrida writes in "Violence and Metaphysics,":

The infinitely other, the infinity of the other, is not the other (as [it.]) a positive infinity, as God, or resemblance with God. The infinitely Other would not be what it is, other, if it was a positive infinity, and if it did not maintain within itself the negativity of the indefinite....The other cannot be what it is, infinitely other, except in finitude and mortality (mine [and (it.)] its.) WD, 114-15/168-69.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, pp. 91-2)