Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The opposite is true. If you believe the story told therein, you are a fool.
We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that we're not descended from a single couple. We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that humanity is much older than 6,000 years. We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that a global flood 4,000 years ago did not occur. In fact, we know such a flood is literally impossible.
If you believe those things happened it is you, and not I, that has their head buried in the sand. For you are rejecting fact for your fiction, nee, dare I say it, fantasy.
The opposite is true. If you believe the story told therein, you are a fool.
We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that we're not descended from a single couple. We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that humanity is much older than 6,000 years. We know, beyond a scientific doubt, that a global flood 4,000 years ago did not occur. In fact, we know such a flood is literally impossible.
No we don't.
But all means continue to repeat your dogmatic mantra if it makes you feel better. Unlike you - I have an open mind - and will not make absolute statements of fact that cannot be supported.
The universe is vast enough that it will never be entirely quantified - it would behoove you to understand that there are some things we will never be completely sure of.
As for "fools" : "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'." - Psalm 14:1
Evolutionary biology should become an elective course - and not a requirement for graduation. That and providing an Intelligent Design elective class should settle the issue - the student could choose which course they prefer and everyone should be happy.
Geography should become an elective course and not a requirement for graduation. That and providing a Flat Earth elective class should settle the issue of whether the earth is flat or a sphere. The student could choose which course they prefer and everyone should be happy.
* Niagara Falls would have eroded all the way around the world.
* The Mississippi River Delta would have more than filled up the Gulf of Mexico.
* If millions of years old, the oceans would be slimy, lifeless bogs; if billions, the oceans would be solid and the earth would be a desert.
* The human population of the earth would be more like 20 billion instead of the 6.4 billion it is.
* Whatever happened to the more than 900 cubic miles of dirt and rock from the Grand Canyon?
Niagara Falls has been eroding at the rate of 4.7 feet per year over the past 185 years. If, under the uniformitarian theory of Evolution, we pick a number of just three feet per year, in 120 million years Niagara Falls would have eroded completely around the world, crossing others rivers and falls that were doing the same thing (an impossibility). That would only put us back into the middle of the dinosaur era according to Evolutionists. Obviously that cannot be true. However, under the Evolutionary Theory, Niagara Falls would have eroded west through the Great Lakes (draining them) to the source of the head waters of Lake Superior. However, if the Great Lakes and the connecting rivers which take the water to the Atlantic Ocean were created by Noah'sFlood, and the ensuing Ice Age which resulted from the flood a little over 5,000 years ago, then the falls are just were you would expect them to be.
The Mississippi River pours more than water into the Gulf of Mexico. It also dumps 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf each year. But if you calculate the sediment from all the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, the deltas and continental shelf accounts for far less than 10,000 years worth of sediment flow.
What about the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon? Evolution tells us that the great rift in the earth was formed over millions of years as the waters slowly carried all of the rock and silt down stream without leaving a trace. There is no delta at the mouth of the Colorado. Are you aware that 900 cubic miles of dirt and rock have gone somewhere? Evolutionists have no answer. Creationists do. It is wrapped up in Noah's Flood and the ensuing Ice Age just over 5,000 years ago.
If, as Evolutionists insist, fully formed human beings have been around for about one million years, the earth population should be more than three times what it currently is (allowing for sickness, wars, etc.). In addition, some 3 trillion humans should have lived on this earth in a million years. That means burial grounds and human remains should be found everywhere. There are not nearly enough remains to account for one million years of human existence on the earth.
Finally, we come to the oceans. The oceans are becoming slightly more salty with each passing year, decade, century, and millennium. The water runs into the oceans from the rivers. The water then evaporates and returns to the clouds to return as rain. But the mineral content and the sediment that came into the oceans from the rivers remains. If the earth were one million years old, the waters should be thick and soupy, not capable of sustaining life. If the earth has been around a billion years, the oceans should be solid. That means there would be little water to evaporate and create rain, leaving the earth a virtual desert.
The Evolutionary hoax that it takes millions of years to form...
* Oil
* Coal
* Diamonds
* Rock
* Fossils
* Stalagmites and stalactites
Would it surprise you to know that scientists have been watching the development of an oil field off the west coast of the United States for the past few years? It has been forming very rapidly and in a much different way than formerly was believed possible. It is the very first time science has had the opportunity to actually see it happen before their very eyes, and it violates all previously understood knowledge on the subject.
Coal takes millions of years under extreme pressure to form. Right? Wrong! That's what we used to think. But today coal can be made in the laboratory in a matter of weeks, and with relatively little pressure. The same is true of diamonds and various other types of rock.
What about fossils? Any living thing which dies in the open decays or is eaten, and there is no evidence of any remains. In order for a fossil to be formed, the living thing must be buried alive in mud. That mud must then turn to rock very quickly before the decay process sets in. Evolutionists have no explanation for fossils other than the Ice Ages and various mini-floods around the world. Creationists point to Noah's Flood which would have produced rock layers, one on top of the other over a period of several weeks and trapping living things just exactly as we find them around the world today. As a matter of fact, the action and results of Noah's Flood (including the laying down of the rock layers) has been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Evolutionists tell us that "New Mexico's unfinished symphony was started 250 million years ago. Tiny drops of water, over millions of years, silently created the world's most awesome monument to the wonders of nature. Crystal Spring Dome and Hall of Giants are names that hint at some of the magnificent formations discovered in the rooms the size of concert halls."
In the October 1953 issue of National Geographic Magazine, page 442, there was a picture of a bat, completely covered in a stalagmite. I must wonder how they got that bat to sit under the "tiny drops of water" for "millions of years" so it could be "silently" formed into a stalagmite. In 1987 a picture was published of huge stalagmites hanging from the roof of a lead mine in Mt. Isa, Australia. The water-created rock even covered signs that had been hung in the mine. The mine was only 55 years old at the time the picture was taken. Or how about the stalagmites hanging and continuing to grow in the base of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC? Some of them are more than six feet long. The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922.
DNA by chance...?
* Contains the blueprints for life.
* Each cell holds enough data to fill paperback books stacked 500 times as high as the distance from earth to the moon.
A computer can hold billions of bits of data. But DNA the size of the head of a pin contains enough data to fill a stack of books from the Earth to the Mood 500 times over! Now, think of the billions of dollars and hours of research it took to develop the computer. No scientist would ever look at a computer and think it was the result of chance random processes. Yet these same scientists look at DNA and insist it arose through evolutionary processes far more complicated than any computer ever dreamed of.
Statistics points to the impossibility of Evolution...
To get all the elements together to form one simple bacterium is not just an improbablility, it is impossible! Statistics is a very complicated field, and there are a number of books on the subject as it relates to Evolution. So we are not going to go into detail. Just remember that statisticians believe that anything more than 10 to the 39th power is impossible. Here are the five things that must show up at just the right time to form one simple bacterium:
1. Chirality
2. Life specific amino acids
3. Correct AA, proper place
4. Correct Material (right place for each gene)
5. Correct gene sequencing
The statistical chance of all of that coming together in the right order and at the right time is 10 to the 112,827th power. Remember, anything over 10 to the 39th power is considered to be impossible. The formation of a single bacterium by chance is far beyond the term "impossible."
But let's carry it one step farther. Let's bring that impossible number closer to our understanding. Let's take all the electrons in the entire universe. That would be quadrillions upon quadrillions of them. Let's take one out and mark it, then mix it in with the rest. The chance of one single bacterium forming through Evolution would be like picking that one electron we marked, out of the entire universe, not one time, but 1,376 times in a row without missing it one time. And even it that by chance did happen, all you would have is contents of one single lifeless bacterium. In order for us to have evolved into what we observe in the world and the universe today, you would have to have trillions upon trillions of such events; after which you would have a lot of mass, but still no life.
Both Creation and Evolution require faith to believe. Creation rests on divine revelation and has sound scientific reasoning to explain what we observe in the world (the evidence). Evolution rests on the assumption that there is no God and that nothing supernatural can or did happen. Evolution has great difficulty trying to explain much of the evidence found in nature, and literally has to dismiss much of the evidence because it does not fit their model.
OK, perhaps the lesson here is don't post articles you haven't yet read.
I want to be clear... you meant that lesson for yourself, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
There is no known explanation for that, but it fits the simulation theory quite nicely.
Okay... I'll keep on this point like a pit bull because it is the single most important point of our discussion. You keep saying that the observations "fit the simulation theory." But in actuality, there is no simulation theory capable of making predictions for the observations to fit. It is purely an ad hoc explanation and it's the same answer every time; because.
I have to ask again... specifically what about the simulation theory would predict this result?
The digital simulation theory explains the behavior of the double slit experiment.
A digital simulation theory can explain everything, and therefore it ultimately explains nothing. If every physical phenomenon can be explained away with the ad hoc assertion that some designer just arbitrarily programmed it that way, it is completely useless. A theory with any claim to scientific merit must be fruitful, it must suggest alternate avenues for research and most importantly, it must be testable.
Here's an example: When the particle/wave duality of photons (the theory that you called "codswallop") was first demonstrated by Einstein in his Nobel winning experiment of the photoelectric effect, it suggested other avenues of research. Specifically, it led to de Broglie's extension of the theory to other particles, and his brilliant PhD thesis where he proposed that all entities possessed the same dual character. He predicted that if we looked for the same duality in electrons, we would find it. This was therefore an obvious way to test if the particle/wave duality theory was correct.
Physicists Davisson and Germer took up that challenge and created an experiment to test the theory in which a beam of electrons was scattered by passing it through a crystal and observing the resulting pattern. The results showed wave behavior by electrons, just as Young's slit experiment showed it for light.
So the process was :
1. Empirical observation.
2. Theory.
3. New prediction from that.
4. Test.
Now.... is this what we find with your simulation theory? No, we do not. Your theory is completely missing steps three and four. It makes no predicitions at all and so cannot be tested.
Even worse, even if it did make predictions (and it does not) they could not be tested since it has a built in ad hoc excuse in the arbitrary choice or error of the programmer. A simulated universe need follow no rules at all.
You demonstrate this completely when you write things like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
I did not say it predicts entanglement, I said entanglement is indicative of a simulation.
See? It is purely ad hoc. There was nothing in the simulation theory that would have or could have predicted the discovery of entangled photos. So their existence is neither explained by simulation theory, nor does it offer any hope of explaining them beyond the single stock answer of "it was just programmed that way."
Here... let me put an even finer point on the shortfall of the simulation theory by offering an equally useful alternative; fairies. In the fairy theory, all physical phenomena are eventuated by a vast army of fairies who are directly responsible for every casual relationship. Now... we cannot use the theory to predict anything, but we can use it to explain everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Entangled bits violate relativity. If I move 2 entangled entities 1 light year away from each other, and the reverse the spin on one, the other will instantly reflect that, implying somehow that information had traveled faster than light, which is impossible.
Yet it will happen.
And here we have another perfect example of how real theories progress in an incremental way towards truth when encountering challenging empirical observations and "theories" such as your simulation do not. The apparent communication at a distance between entangled photons is a striking phenomenon, one that is thoroughly deserving of being called "weird." So how does the simulation theory explain it? Easy... it's was programmed that way.
Of what use is that?
In contrast, quantum physicists take the phenomenon as an important indication of a potentially fruitful avenue of new theoretical and physical research. I earlier linked you to an article that discussed that in great detail but you ignored it. (I wonder why I even bother to publish links for you since you have never once even shown a hint that you follow them.)
Rather than simply throw up their hands and say "it's programmed that way" real science pursues deeper explanations, refinements of the theories, testable predictions.
So here we are again... back to testable predicitions.
* Niagara Falls would have eroded all the way around the world.
* The Mississippi River Delta would have more than filled up the Gulf of Mexico.
* If millions of years old, the oceans would be slimy, lifeless bogs; if billions, the oceans would be solid and the earth would be a desert.
* Whatever happened to the more than 900 cubic miles of dirt and rock from the Grand Canyon?
Apparently, it's not just evolutionary science that creationists have a problem with.
It's only the beginning of their disagreements with science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
