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.
Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.LMAO. You shouldn't be in S&T if you can't read beyond a paragrah. Just leave. Why am I discussing anything with you lol?
Fine admission, but don't worry. No one would even accuse you of being a purple one.I'm not a supernatural being.
He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.Exactly. Why should you when you have nothing but made up shit to say. No comment about the 12 Christian sects that do buy into evolution either. It would be hilarious if one of them was yours. Ha ha.
With a half dozen paragraphs that few even read. I think he’s campaigning for a ministry position.He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.
.
I just did using the Marangoni Effect and the following recent article backs up the Bible and Noah's Flood. It's how the waters from below came up.You never provided evidence of a global flood.
Sheesh. I'm the one who brings up new science here just by using the Bible. It shows science backs up the Bible, but not evolution. It's your belief in evolution that prevents you from real science. Otherwise, wouldn't you have the new science to bring up? The atheists have brought up exactly zilch, zero, nada and less in the many months I've been here lol.He never responds to questions that he can't answer or are embarrassing to him. He really doesn't care. He just likes to string people along.
Action at a distance isn't used anymore. Field Theory is used. It is a fundamental concept in physics.The theory of gravity uses the anti-scientific principle of action at a distance. This is a debunked theory. Action at a distance has not been found in nature.
Politically correct title of Ether? Then why do they keep denying the Ether?
They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with "fields". If they could deny wave properties, they would go back to Newton's theory of flying shit. They invented "photons" for this very reason. They were helped in this by LSD.Fields are not "Ether"
No, that's idiotic. The idea of fields are so completely different from your ether fantasy that I am embarrassed even to be comparing them or mentioning them together.They had to replace the ether with something, so they came up with fields.
I said: LSD + mathematical speculation (I remind you that physics is not a speculative science).The idea of fields arose as mathematical
If you don't want to believe in the global flood even though it did happen is up to you. It was in regards to the Wrath of God.You are right. He is now repeating himself. Nothing new to see here. I will leave him to his science denial and let him relish his miracles of the bible.
mousesqueak.com
Good grief…..if you believe the wrath of god as a response to the evil doers, it has to be the gop who hate the poor, minorities and the oppressed. You know, all those people repugs try to fuck over.the Wrath of God.
Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is only a theory'. Not knowing Science does Not use 'Theory' for mere Conjecture but for a well documented set of facts.
The board is polluted with alot of these Literalists and 7-Eleven Adventists who know Zero about science.
Warning: Gravity is "Only a Theory"
by Ellery Schempp
Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.[...... Big snip........]It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.`
Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.Let me explain the fallacy of this OP.
This is supposed to ridicule the idea of Darwinian evolution being "only a theory," and therefore should not be taught as settled science in school, but presented as what it is - a theory.
Both the theory of gravity and the theory of Darwinian evolution are intended to explain observable facts.
Newtonian gravity theory is an explanation for the observable fact that objects near Earth move toward Earth, if not prevented by some force. That objects with mass tend to remain on Earth or fall to the Earth, is not in dispute. But that is not the "Theory of Gravity."
Darwinian evolution theory is an explanation for the observable facts that there are a variety of species on Earth and that there are large numbers of fossilized species which living examples of are not found on Earth. The existence of species is not in dispute. But the existence of species is not Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection.
Darwin's theory was a hypothesis that made enough validated predictions that it qualified to be called a theory. There are no such observations of Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection. So Darwin's "theory," is really a hypothesis based on observation and speculation.
Newton's Theory of Universal Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, since Newton's theory failed in just a few predictions that Einstein's did not.
Still, Newtonian gravity has far more scientific support* than Darwins Speciation via Natural Selection. So, comparing the two is the definition of "grasping at straws.
*By "scientific support," I mean experiments which result in evidence for the theory. I don't mean anything like "four out of five scientists say . . . "
With no real response to any of the previous 29?Posting of it maybe #30 by me here.
`
I've put it in my own words (and elaborated) HUNDREDS of times, as I understand science and this topic.With no real response to any of the previous 29?
You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.
When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it. Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.
Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.
What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
'Appeal to Authority' is often abused by Science ILLITERATES of which you are one.With no real response to any of the previous 29?
You might try reading the argument made by your source and then paraphrasing it.
When your entire post consists of a copy and paste of something published, it makes me think that you will not be willing to defend it. Many times, when I was naive about how people "debate"on the internet, I would refute such a post, only to have the person who posted it say, "tell that to Scientific American!" or whoever their cut and past was from.
Make your point in your own words, and I'll happily debate you on it, or tell you that I agree with you.
What you posted is just the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
