Evolution My ToE

[Audie]

Obviously many have the idea that complex (or simple) cellular structures came about by biologically enforced methods (sometimes called natural selection), there is absolutely no verifiable proof that these cells possessed 'life' as they emerged, or after they emerged from whatever mass they are imagined to come from other than men's deciding what the fossils point to per the theory. In fact, at least UFO sightings had living people declare they saw them. As I have said before as far as design goes, I do not believe that God made or created deformities.

Your call for proof is quite clever,
I think you should prove what
Jesus’ poop smelled better than
others. Both are equally vital
and accessible.

Failing that, at least tell us exactly
what is the bright line distinction between
life and non life.

Because if you cannot your complaint
is utterly vacuous.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you believe as well that aliens have hovered over the earth? And have visited CIA or FBI headquarters?

No. It's a lot of nonsense. In my opinion, all reported UFOs (other than hallucinations or deliberate fakes) have been bright planets and stars, meteors or fireballs, flying animals (birds, bats or insects), or aircraft or balloons. Where would these aliens have come from? None of the other planets in the solar system can support complex life, and it would be impossible for extrasolar civilisations (if any exist) to make frequent enough visits to explain the large numbers of reported UFOs. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Edit: I should have added artificial satellites, unusual clouds (e.g. lenticular clouds) and contrails as other causes of UFOs,

 

[dad]

I have mentioned the fact that scientists can observe radioactive decay in supernovas and measure the rate of decay.

Yes, we see that here in our space and time.

The results are the same as on Earth this is at very far distances and long before the Earth was made in your myth. Links can be provided.

The results are on earth, so how could they be seen any other way?

 

[dad]

Failing that, at least tell us exactly
what is the bright line distinction between
life and non life.

I find it amusing that science advocates cannot tell the difference between life and death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, we see that here in our space and time.

Yes, and the burden of proof is upon you to explain otherwise. But at least you got one small point right.

The results are on earth, so how could they be seen any other way?

Seriously, this does not make any sense. If decay rates were different elsewhere observing them here would not change them. Now if you want to claim that they are different and yet we do not observe that the burden of proof is once again upon you.

Let me explain what it means when I say that. Since you claim that various constants are different elsewhere you need to come up with a testable model that explains those observations. If you cannot you are refuted by your own lack of support.

 

[McBell]

I find it amusing that science advocates cannot tell the difference between life and death.

What is even more amusing is how you keep replying when it is so painfully obvious you do not understand the material you replying to.

 

[dad]

Yes, and the burden of proof is upon you to explain otherwise.

No need. It is self-evident that unless time and space were the same far away, that what we see here would not be representative of what exists there. So, if anyone claims it is the same or specifically different, then they need some evidence. If they just say we do not know, then they need nothing.

Seriously, this does not make any sense. If decay rates were different elsewhere observing them here would not change them.

We do not know what time may be involved out there with any decay sequence. Once the light is here, we can look at the spectra and deduce that it contains certain materials. Materials that ON EARTH take so much time to go through the processes of decay. If we see something that takes 77 days to form in a decay sequence here, (Like Cobalt-56 takes to decay into Iron-56) the question arises..does 77 days on earth equal 77 days in far space? So...does it?

Since you claim that various constants are different elsewhere

If time were not the same it would not be a constant. You claim it is, so you have the burden of proof.

you need to come up with a testable model that explains those observations. If you cannot you are refuted by your own lack of support.

False. All we need to know is that we do not know! That means that all distances sizes and times assumed in far space are impossible to know, and that claims of 14 billion years are nonsense.

 

[dad]

What is even more amusing is how you keep replying when it is so painfully obvious you do not understand the material you replying to.

Either that or you do not understand that I do understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No need. It is self-evident that unless time and space were the same far away, that what we see here would not be representative of what exists there. So, if anyone claims it is the same or specifically different, then they need some evidence. If they just say we do not know, then they need nothing.


We do not know what time may be involved out there with any decay sequence. Once the light is here, we can look at the spectra and deduce that it contains certain materials. Materials that ON EARTH take so much time to go through the processes of decay. If we see something that takes 77 days to form in a decay sequence here, (Like Cobalt-56 takes to decay into Iron-56) the question arises..does 77 days on earth equal 77 days in far space? So...does it?

If time were not the same it would not be a constant. You claim it is, so you have the burden of proof.

False. All we need to know is that we do not know! That means that all distances sizes and times assumed in far space are impossible to know, and that claims of 14 billion years are nonsense.

LOL! Anyone that claims that something is "self evident" and then cannot support it has effectively admitted that he is wrong and that is not the case.

If you cannot support your claims you end up refuting yourself.

By the way, you keep trying to change what I claim. My claim is that all of the evidence supports no change in constants of physics. There is no logical nor sane reason to claim or believe that there was a change. You claim that there is a change. That outs the burden of proof upon you. By dodging the burden of proof you admit that you are wrong.

 

[McBell]

Either that or you do not understand that I do understand.

I am giving you the benefit of doubt.
See, if you do in fact understand, then your posts reveal a level of dishonesty I have not seen for quite some time.

Now I suppose it is up to you to let us know if your are simply ignorant on the subject matter or if you are dishonest.

 

[dad]

LOL! Anyone that claims that something is "self evident" and then cannot support it has effectively admitted that he is wrong and that is not the case.

The support needed is showing you do not know, and cannot establish that time and space are the same in far space. Then, if you cannot support your claims that they are the same, you end up refuting yourself.

By the way, you keep trying to change what I claim. My claim is that all of the evidence supports no change in constants of physics.

Name any evidence that does not first assume it was the same? Seeing light in our time and space here does nothing to prove it is the same in deep space.

There is no logical nor sane reason to claim or believe that there was a change.

There is no reason within physical only science to claim there was or was not a change. That is all I need. The reasons history and the bible give us to know the past was very different stand unassailable. Your so-called science belief that all things continue as they were since the time of the fathers stands unsupportable.

 

[dad]

I am giving you the benefit of doubt.
See, if you do in fact understand, then your posts reveal a level of dishonesty I have not seen for quite some time.

If you were honest and could and did understand, your posts could easily tell us exactly what you think we misunderstand!

Now I suppose it is up to you to let us know if your are simply ignorant on the subject matter or if you are dishonest.

We will find out soon as you post this mysterious stuff that you think is not being understood. The problem actually was that it was not being posted!

 

[YoursTrue]

Unfortunately the best you can do when faced with the evidence.

No I'm just not getting into it. Maybe later. One senator some time ago claims he was chased by aliens. (Right...) And that's it.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you were honest and could and did understand, your posts could easily tell us exactly what you think we misunderstand!
We will find out soon as you post this mysterious stuff that you think is not being understood. The problem actually was that it was not being posted!

It's similar to stating differences between popular version and scientific version of evolution. Claims but no substance. Or definitions.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. It's a lot of nonsense. In my opinion, all reported UFOs (other than hallucinations or deliberate fakes) have been bright planets and stars, meteors or fireballs, flying animals (birds, bats or insects), or aircraft or balloons. Where would these aliens have come from? None of the other planets in the solar system can support complex life, and it would be impossible for extrasolar civilisations (if any exist) to make frequent enough visits to explain the large numbers of reported UFOs. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Edit: I should have added artificial satellites, unusual clouds (e.g. lenticular clouds) and contrails as other causes of UFOs,

While I might spend some time (later) reading the reports of these things, I do hope Mr. Shunyadragon is listening.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Shinyadragon

No. It's a lot of nonsense. In my opinion, all reported UFOs (other than hallucinations or deliberate fakes) have been bright planets and stars, meteors or fireballs, flying animals (birds, bats or insects), or aircraft or balloons. Where would these aliens have come from? None of the other planets in the solar system can support complex life, and it would be impossible for extrasolar civilisations (if any exist) to make frequent enough visits to explain the large numbers of reported UFOs. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Edit: I should have added artificial satellites, unusual clouds (e.g. lenticular clouds) and contrails as other causes of UFOs,

Well, I wanted to know how far some people will accept what they call evidence leading to a conclusion.Thanks for your reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The support needed is showing you do not know, and cannot establish that time and space are the same in far space. Then, if you cannot support your claims that they are the same, you end up refuting yourself.

Name any evidence that does not first assume it was the same? Seeing light in our time and space here does nothing to prove it is the same in deep space.


There is no reason within physical only science to claim there was or was not a change. That is all I need. The reasons history and the bible give us to know the past was very different stand unassailable. Your so-called science belief that all things continue as they were since the time of the fathers stands unsupportable.

No dad, you have been the one making outlandish claims that you cannot support. I can and have supported mine. I just offered to give you a link on observed nuclear decays in supernovae. You know that scientists have observed and checked the decay rates multiple times.

And you do not seem to understand. No "assumptions" are necessary. If constants had changed then we would observe the effects of those changes. That is one of the reasons why they make that sort of observation. Since we do not see what you predict would be seen the burden of proof is upon you to explain that.

It also appears that you do not understand the nature of evidence since observing ancient light is evidence that supports my claims. No "assumptions" necessary,.

 

[McBell]

It's similar to stating differences between popular version and scientific version of evolution. Claims but no substance. Or definitions.

Your inability to understand what is said to you is YOUR issue, not anyone else's.

 

[dad]

It's similar to stating differences between popular version and scientific version of evolution. Claims but no substance. Or definitions.

Like religious indignation.

 

[dad]

I just offered to give you a link on observed nuclear decays in supernovae. You know that scientists have observed and checked the decay rates multiple times.

Did they check it here and observe it here? That should tell you that it was in our time and space. Therefore do not try to assign times involved in reactions that are existing/seen here with the time involved out of the fishbowl.

If constants had changed then we would observe the effects of those changes.

Prove there are constants like constant time in the universe?? You see something in the fishbowl and declare it a universal constant. Ridiculous.

Since we do not see what you predict would be seen the burden of proof is upon you to explain that.

What they see is here. I have no predictions that they see it anywhere else! Nor do I suggest that when the light gets here, the spectra should unfold in any other time and space but OURS. Looking at things IN our time does not tell us about space and time far far far away.

It also appears that you do not understand the nature of evidence since observing ancient light is evidence that supports my claims. No "assumptions" necessary,.

The only thing ancient about light we see here on earth from stars is in your head. You declare it old because you think it is so far away, and you think it is so far away because you think it had to have taken a long time to get here! Circular in the extreme.