"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

"Backwardly wired retina an optimal structure"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#101  Postby ADParker » Jun 08, 2014 7:23 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Hello theropod. Consider this way of understanding that information is not physical. (There are a hundred ways to understand this.) We (human beings) can accelerate some bits of subatomic particles to significant fractions of the speed of light, but we can't accelerate anything to light speed (in a vacuum). However, we can transmit gigabytes of data, entire novels, in a millisecond, at the speed of light. That is a rudimentary way of showing that information is not physical.

That's ridiculous. Practically insanely so. :shock:

Is that even true?
Researchers create fiber network that operates at 99.7% speed of light, smashes speed and latency records

Do you actually think we can move pure information? That is something immaterial, without any physical aspects at all?! :what:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The ink on the pages in your books theropod represent the information that those books contain; but the ink itself is *not* the information itself. The information encoded on a DNA molecule has nothing to do with the chemistry of the nucleotides, just as the plot of a novel is fully independent of the chemistry of the ink, the electrons in the Kindle, the sound waves in the air, etc.

You are just playing an equivocation game with the word "information". Tiresome.
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 52
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#102  Postby Thommo » Jun 08, 2014 7:32 am

Aren't lightbulbs a human invention that "speeds up" subatomic particles to the speed of light. Or if that's a bit of a recent invention, what about fire?

It seems a bit obvious that we have light emitting devices and that light travels at the speed of light.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27474

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#103  Postby Rumraket » Jun 08, 2014 9:36 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Bob wrote:Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?

No, but scientists do, and many of those are atheist.

Hello hackenslash! Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarity. So, the pattern that I provided hackenslash demonstrates that atheist scientists do not even have a hypothesis on origin of life, species, proteins, stars, consciousness, encoding DNA, etc.

- Bob Enyart

LOL. And he writes this post immediately below mine where I provide multiple such models. Tak the blinders off Bob. :lol:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#104  Postby Rumraket » Jun 08, 2014 9:40 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Both sides have long offered their methods of demarcation. ... The Darwinist camp offers a philosophical, and the ID camp provides a mathematical method of demarcation.

The ID camp offers mathematical proof of design? Show me.

Hi Rumraket. Well, that's pretty close to what I said, I guess. What I wrote was that the ID community offers a mathematical method of demarcation.

Regarding "proof" of anything, have you ever had an atheist say to you that "proof" is only possible in mathematics? Ha! When I hear that, I ask if he can prove that mathematics exists? (Funny no? We've got a million of 'em!)

:)

That ID book is in my studio which is two miles from my home. However, we do discuss their mathematical method to identify design in the interview that I conducted with one of the Intelligent Design Uncensored authors, and it is archived on the Internet, so it's instantly available to anyone who is interested.

I'm curious. If I were to go to the studio right now and get that book, and type in the sentence or two with their mathematical method, would you be inclined to carefully consider it?

If so, I'll consider going out tonight and getting that book.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

Not only would I be inclined to consider it, I would greatly appreciate if you could lead by example and show you understand how to use it on some given stretch of DNA or RNA sequence that I provide. Does that sound fair? You are, after all, the one advertising that this method exists and works. Surely you would not advertise for a method you don't really understand, and just mindlessly regurgitate it because the author of the method agrees with your religious preconceptions?

I'm being serious here Bob. I would really, really like to see the method utilized on something concrete. Let's explore the issue together, and test whether Dembski's method can really tell whether something was designed or not. You in?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#105  Postby Rumraket » Jun 08, 2014 9:45 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Rumraket wrote:You would do well to read Gould instead of Dawkins.
... It still is, the genome is still mostly junk.


Hi Rumraket! I grew up enjoying frequent visits to his museum not far from my hometown, and across the Hudson, and I began reading Gould in the 1980s.

I appreciate that you are a true believer, and that you have the courage to put your genome assessment in bold black and white.

Wow! That is courageous!

It's also going to come back on you.

Thanks,

- Bob Enyart

p.s. Just thought of a question. If, like Dawkins, you become convinced some day that the genome is not mostly junk, do you think you will, unlike Dawkins, have the courage to acknowledge that a major argument against creationism that was made by you and virtually the entire Darwinist community was wrong?

Yes, of course. When I'm wrong I admit that I'm wrong and I subsequently change my opinion. As I'm sure we can agree, some things aren't true just because they say so in a scientific publication. So I do have to wonder why it is the ID/creationism community have so uncritically latched on to the ENCODE results. There seems to be some double standard at work there.

I reckognize that the sensationalistic claim that most of the genome is functional is a welcome news item to a religious believer. Nevertheless, you should, if you are intellectually honest and open minded, be just as skeptical about claims that confirm your preconceptions, as you are about claims that run contrary to them. I have seen no such balanced skepticism from anyone in the ID/creationism community following the ENCODE results.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#106  Postby Rumraket » Jun 08, 2014 9:47 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
theropod wrote:Information isn't physical? Really? I suppose that shelf of books at my side are mere figments.


Hello theropod. Consider this way of understanding that information is not physical. (There are a hundred ways to understand this.) We (human beings) can accelerate some bits of subatomic particles to significant fractions of the speed of light, but we can't accelerate anything to light speed (in a vacuum). However, we can transmit gigabytes of data, entire novels, in a millisecond, at the speed of light.

That's because we're sending actual light. Light electromagnetic radiation. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that to be physical means being made of matter and having mass.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#107  Postby Rumraket » Jun 08, 2014 9:50 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The ink on the pages in your books theropod represent the information that those books contain; but the ink itself is *not* the information itself. The information encoded on a DNA molecule has nothing to do with the chemistry of the nucleotides, just as the plot of a novel is fully independent of the chemistry of the ink, the electrons in the Kindle, the sound waves in the air, etc.

There would be nothing to read without the physical ink. Case closed. The letters and their shapes are concrete physical realities, they reflect and absorb light of specific wavelengths which is picked up by your retina and transmitted to your brain in the form of electrochemical signals. There is no magical immaterial realm anywhere in this sequence of events. We have computers that can read and understand, you think they do this by reaching into a realm of ghosts and extracting immaterial information from in there? :crazy:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#108  Postby hackenslash » Jun 08, 2014 10:08 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Hello hackenslash! Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to.


Of course it is, because we can't have believers saying your cosmic curtain-twitcher wasn't responsible for every detail, can we. Setting aside the fact that this entity is preposterous in the extreme, of course...

Thanks for the opportunity to clarity.


Your opportunity to be clear was when you erected this bollocks.

So, the pattern that I provided hackenslash demonstrates that atheist scientists do not even have a hypothesis on origin of life, species, proteins, stars, consciousness, encoding DNA, etc.


Does it really? Which bit of 'scientists do' is failing to penetrate the fog of credulity here?

Isn't there something in your book of idiotic fuckwittery about bearing false witness? There's definitely something in the forum users' agreement, to which you agreed when you joined. Might be worth bearing that in mind.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#109  Postby hackenslash » Jun 08, 2014 10:12 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Sorry hackenslash for the confusion. I meant that with our upright posture, we humans so easily gaze above the horizon.


Well that clarifies massively that you really have no fucking idea of what you're on about. Can you tell us all what a horizon is, Bob? More importantly, can you name an animal that can't gaze above the horizon?
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#110  Postby Made of Stars » Jun 08, 2014 11:03 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Made of Stars wrote:
Perhaps like you, I've been reading mainstream evolutionary work for decades, since the 1970s for me...

Proof that confirmation bias is a powerful force. I'm firmly of the opinion that creationists are only creationists because they're insecure about their belief system, and not that far from giving it up. Like those who rail against homosexuality...

Hi Made of Stars! If you've really hit upon a deep psychoanalysis of the human being, then wouldn't you yourself be on the verge of becoming a Christian?

No, more of an analysis resulting from having been an evangelical Christian, and biologist. I watched others around me try to hold on to their faith, and do so while try to reconcile the facts with young earth creationism. They failed.

For my part, I was never a YEC, and wasn't much bothered by a billions year old Earth. The creation myth wasn't a big part of my Christianity. Ultimately, it was the wide range of other inconsistencies and nonsensical contentions that undid my Christianity.

You mentioned the problem of evil early on in your posting career here. Perhaps I'll address it in a separate post, but in brief, your position that 'suffering makes us appreciate the good times' (or something to that effect) is really quite puerile. It might provide succour to comfortable, middle-class white people, but is an offence against those millions and billions amongst who genuinely live miserable, short, brutal lives. If this is the rationale for evil and suffering, your god is a mean little man who needs to shrivel up and die.
Made of Stars, by Neil deGrasse Tyson and zenpencils

“Be humble for you are made of earth. Be noble for you are made of stars” - Serbian proverb
User avatar
Made of Stars
RS Donator
 
Name: Call me Coco
Posts: 9835
Age: 55
Male

Country: Girt by sea
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#111  Postby kennyc » Jun 08, 2014 11:36 am

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Hello theropod. Consider this way of understanding that information is not physical. (There are a hundred ways to understand this.) We (human beings) can accelerate some bits of subatomic particles to significant fractions of the speed of light, but we can't accelerate anything to light speed (in a vacuum). However, we can transmit gigabytes of data, entire novels, in a millisecond, at the speed of light. That is a rudimentary way of showing that information is not physical.

That's ridiculous. Practically insanely so. :shock:

Is that even true?
Researchers create fiber network that operates at 99.7% speed of light, smashes speed and latency records

Do you actually think we can move pure information? That is something immaterial, without any physical aspects at all?! :what:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The ink on the pages in your books theropod represent the information that those books contain; but the ink itself is *not* the information itself. The information encoded on a DNA molecule has nothing to do with the chemistry of the nucleotides, just as the plot of a novel is fully independent of the chemistry of the ink, the electrons in the Kindle, the sound waves in the air, etc.

You are just playing an equivocation game with the word "information". Tiresome.


Yes this is another tact I'm finding exceedingly tiresome.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#112  Postby kennyc » Jun 08, 2014 11:37 am

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Bob wrote:Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?

No, but scientists do, and many of those are atheist.

Hello hackenslash! Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarity. So, the pattern that I provided hackenslash demonstrates that atheist scientists do not even have a hypothesis on origin of life, species, proteins, stars, consciousness, encoding DNA, etc.

- Bob Enyart

LOL. And he writes this post immediately below mine where I provide multiple such models. Tak the blinders off Bob. :lol:


Well, that's what these types are all about. :roll:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#113  Postby ElDiablo » Jun 08, 2014 1:05 pm

With a name like Bob@RealScienceRadio, why doesn't it surprise me that he's a creationist who hates atheists and science?
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#114  Postby kennyc » Jun 08, 2014 1:18 pm

Image
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#115  Postby Bob@RealScienceRadio » Jun 08, 2014 1:38 pm

Hello Rumraket. Thanks for marking "yes" for those of my observations that you accept.

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars

Bzzz. false. The first generation of stars formed after the big bang following big bang nucleosynthesis.


Of course I don't know how recently you have reviewed the standard model of star formation. In your comment, you have the timing correct, of when it is claimed that stars began to form. But if you investigate, you will see that the standard model, in order to overcome severe physics problems, begins with stars already in the process of formation (not unlike evolution beginning with life already in existence). That's one of the many reasons why we say that atheist scientists don't have a hypothesis, let alone a robust theory, for origins.

I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as far as I could throw its pornographer founder. But you can probably get a summary of the current model of star formation there. If you would like a handy list of the physics problems with star formation (which is why atheist scientists begin with protostars, or, alternatively, preexisting stars that explode to create a shock wave to compress gas into a protostar), here's one way to find it. Google: evidence against the big bang. Out of Google's estimated 24 million pages that relate to that search, my handy article is usually ranked on the first page, in the top five (just above howstuffworks and discover magazine). Search my article for "theories of star formation", and click. You'll see why the atheist hypothesis for the origin of stars begins with stars already existing.

Rumraket, this isn't really an opinion/conclusion thing. This is me simply quoting atheist scientists on their current theory for star formation. So, if I'm correct on this, please consider that my list of six observations needs another one of your "YESs", and then you might see why I characterize the media and the public as gullible to think that atheist scientists have figured out how to explain origins apart from our Creator God.

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

... Can you even produce any actual data in support of your claimed trends here?

Hmm. I thought that would be obvious. These topics came up in my interview with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. You might enjoy listening to that. He became somewhat worked up during the conversation!

:)

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:This pattern demonstrates that many in the public

What pattern? You have not established a pattern, you have merely asserted it.

Well, for starters, I got quite a few "YESs" from you Rumraket!

:)

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Consider also originating the process to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard

Really?

... What... do you think happens inside your computer? Ever heard about a logic gate? You think a ghost sits inside your CPU?


Rumraket, perhaps you can re-read my observation there. I don't know if you quite followed it. It's a powerful challenge to atheists. Fundamental really.

Oh, look at the time! I've gotta go to church!

Love you brother!

- Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & Real Science Radio
User avatar
Bob@RealScienceRadio
Banned Troll
 
Name: Bob Enyart
Posts: 27

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#116  Postby hackenslash » Jun 08, 2014 1:42 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as far as I could throw its pornographer founder.


Of course you wouldn't, since your own page there is less than entirely complimentary about you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#117  Postby ElDiablo » Jun 08, 2014 1:52 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as far as I could throw its pornographer founder.


Of course you wouldn't, since your own page there is less than entirely complimentary about you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart

OUCH!!!
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3128

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#118  Postby Bob@RealScienceRadio » Jun 08, 2014 1:59 pm

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Hello theropod. Consider this way of understanding that information is not physical. (There are a hundred ways to understand this.) We (human beings) can accelerate some bits of subatomic particles to significant fractions of the speed of light, but we can't accelerate anything to light speed (in a vacuum). However, we can transmit gigabytes of data, entire novels, in a millisecond, at the speed of light. That is a rudimentary way of showing that information is not physical.

That's ridiculous. Practically insanely so. :shock:

Is that even true?

...

Do you actually think we can move pure information? That is something immaterial, without any physical aspects at all?! :what:


Hello again ADParker! I don't think you understand the point. But that might be might fault. I'm sorry if my attempt to explain this point wasn't sufficiently clarified. I went back and added the following to that post, and clearly marked it as an edit.

[EDIT: The point being that if information were physical, we could not transport it at the speed of light. Ask a physicist if we can transport an atom at the speed of light? We can't. We can't transport carbon at the speed of light, not even hydrogen, in fact, not even protons. Because we *can* transport information at the speed of light, that is one way to demonstrate that it is not made of matter. You can't piggyback matter on photons and send them across the solar system. <end transmission>]

:)


Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The ink on the pages in your books theropod represent the information that those books contain; but the ink itself is *not* the information itself. The information encoded on a DNA molecule has nothing to do with the chemistry of the nucleotides, just as the plot of a novel is fully independent of the chemistry of the ink, the electrons in the Kindle, the sound waves in the air, etc.

You are just playing an equivocation game with the word "information". Tiresome.[/quote]
Hmm. I really didn't think I was equivocating ADP. I guess that you have so convinced yourself that information is physical, that you think when I'm talking about the chemicals in the ink on a page, I'm referring to the information on that page. I'm really not. Not at all. Of course, the chemicals are rather consistent from page one of von Mises' Human Action (he's an atheist, but wrote quite an amazing book), to page one thousand. The information on those two pages, however, is dramatically different, practically unrelated.

Realize that the information is contained in a symbolic code that is agreed to by the sender and the receiver. Like a capital A on your screen is represented by what value? In ASCII, if I recall, the number 65, in binary of course (and if things are as they used to be when I studied artificial intelligence at Arizona State University, where Krauss is now in the faculty, that's actually 5 volts for a 1 and half-a-volt for a zero). There is no chemical or physical property or reason why A must equal 65. It's an arbitrary code, as all symbolic codes are (that's the idea). The laws of physics include chaos and random behavior, yes, but not not arbitrary symbolic logic.

Hey, I have an idea. If you think that any of the laws of physics, or chemistry, or quantum mechanics, or gravity, or electromagnetism, etc., have symbolic logic functions, what don't you submit one for consideration.

Thanks ADParker!

- Bob Enyart

p.s. (Now late for church! Sheesh, your site is addicting! :))
User avatar
Bob@RealScienceRadio
Banned Troll
 
Name: Bob Enyart
Posts: 27

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#119  Postby Bob@RealScienceRadio » Jun 08, 2014 2:05 pm

ElDiablo wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as far as I could throw its pornographer founder.


Of course you wouldn't, since your own page there is less than entirely complimentary about you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart

OUCH!!!

Yeah, that Wikipedia stuff is hard to take! What's weird though, is that it is so over-the-top with wild accusations against me (primarily because I am a Christian creationist who opposed dismembering unborn children), that the stuff that really is true that I am ashamed of gets buried in all the crazy stuff, so that after 23 years on a 50,000-watt radio station, those in the audience who manufacture pretty crazy accusations against me have actually insulated me from the criticism I deserve, because it's too much work for most folks to figure out what is real vs. what is insane.

Oh yeah, and what's funny. The two times (years ago) that I tried to correct my page, not to make me look good, but to provide accuracy in the accusations against me, I had my hand slapped (understandably, because you're not supposed to edit your own article). What's hypocritical (and also expected), is that Wikipedia's founder and former porn trafficker, Jimmy Wales, has been caught repeatedly editing his own page, refusing to allow any description of him to include the word "pornography" and has instead chosen "adult content". Ha! Sort of like a physics journal I guess. Not really accessible to kids.

- Bob Enyart

p.s. Really though ED, I do love Wikipedia. You've got to be careful, and check the sources for anything that's especially important. But it is a fun site that has single-handedly (so to speak :) raised the level of education (knowledge possessed) for hundreds of millions of us! That I do greatly appreciate.
User avatar
Bob@RealScienceRadio
Banned Troll
 
Name: Bob Enyart
Posts: 27

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#120  Postby hackenslash » Jun 08, 2014 2:15 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Of course I don't know how recently you have reviewed the standard model of star formation.


You'll find that most here are pretty well read on the topic, not least because we have several physicists and science educators among our membership.

In your comment, you have the timing correct, of when it is claimed that stars began to form. But if you investigate, you will see that the standard model, in order to overcome severe physics problems, begins with stars already in the process of formation (not unlike evolution beginning with life already in existence).


Care to provide a citation for this? Only I suspect you've horribly misunderstood, which is what happens when you get your scientific information from agenda-driven morons and the backs of cereal packets.

That's one of the many reasons why we say that atheist scientists don't have a hypothesis, let alone a robust theory, for origins.


Two things wrong with this: Firstly, it's already been pointed out that we actually have several robust models on the tables. Secondly, you don't have a hypothesis, robust or otherwise. Magicmandunit is not a hypothesis, it's a rectally extracted blind assertion.

But you can probably get a summary of the current model of star formation there.


Don't need it, thanks. I'm fairly well-read on the topic, cosmology being my primary area of scientific interest.

If you would like a handy list of the physics problems with star formation (which is why atheist scientists begin with protostars, or, alternatively, preexisting stars that explode to create a shock wave to compress gas into a protostar),


I'll wait for the citations from the primary literature, thanks.

here's one way to find it. Google: evidence against the big bang. Out of Google's estimated 24 million pages that relate to that search, my handy article is usually ranked on the first page, in the top five (just above howstuffworks and discover magazine). Search my article for "theories of star formation", and click.


Ah, vanity press. If you want your ideas to be considered here, present them here. I'm not about to waste time reading the contents of your arse if you can't even be bothered to present your ideas here. Do your own fucking work.

You'll see why the atheist hypothesis for the origin of stars begins with stars already existing.


Atheists don't have a hypothesis for the origin of stars, but feel free to keep trying this lying, weaselly shit. It simply won't fly here, Bob. This might work on the ignorant rubes who attend Denver Babble Church, but the critical thinkers here are made of sterner stuff.

Rumraket, this isn't really an opinion/conclusion thing. This is me simply quoting atheist scientists on their current theory for star formation.


You haven't provided and quotes, only your own assertions. Since this is a topic I'm more familiar with than you are with honesty, I require robust citations from the primary literature.

So, if I'm correct on this, please consider that my list of six observations needs another one of your "YESs", and then you might see why I characterize the media and the public as gullible to think that atheist scientists have figured out how to explain origins apart from our Creator God.


And the evidence for this celestial peeping-tom of yours?

Hmm. I thought that would be obvious. These topics came up in my interview with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss. You might enjoy listening to that. He became somewhat worked up during the conversation!


Probably because he dislikes dishonesty as much as I do.

Rumraket, perhaps you can re-read my observation there. I don't know if you quite followed it. It's a powerful challenge to atheists. Fundamental really.


Well, since your observation boils down to no more than the assertion that DNA is a code, with the unspoken assertion that it therefore requires a coder, there's not much to deal with, not least because DNA is not a fucking code.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests