Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Mock Turtle]

They have made a monkey out of you with that circular reasoning deception.

Ooh, ooh! Better than having a defective brain which accepts things because they can read - but not be selective or critical.

 

[Sargonski]

What pray tell was wrong with my calculation?
Dismissing it without actually addressing it is circular reasoning because you dismissed it since its refutes evolution and billons of years.

What was the first living creature?

You didn't give a calculation, you did not support your claim ..and thus your claim that the probability of a human existing is (X) is made up nonsense - untill such time as you show us the calculation and state the assumptions.

Asking other people to state what your assumption were for a calculation you have yet to provided is an exercise in playground nonsense .. and perhaps this circular self deception that you keep talking about and trying to project onto others .. in another desperate attempt at playground name calling .. because your position is crucified .. and you have no calculation .. no ability to support .. nor understand the number you produced .. no idea where it came from .. how it was arrived at . .nor any of the implicit assumptions.

But that's ok Friend .. I am here to assist you through the maze .. hopefully extract a few poison lizards along the way.. on the path to enlightenment. .. another poster asked you why you don't think God could have done it .. that God could not have pulled off something having (X) probability ?

Also .. tell me even though the number comming out of a number generator had 1 in a gazillion chance .... every number that comes out of the machine .. was born of (X) probability .. or rather despite it.. and you say "How could that happen" .. its impossible .. and yet it happened .. each and every number .. a Miracle" !! Joy to the World !! each and every time..

And know .. you know .. part of "The Rest of the STory"

You really need to learn what "circular reasoning" means (unless you actually want to look like a fool).

 

[ratiocinator]

And your circular reasoning indoctrination is very very strong in you.

You really need to learn what "circular reasoning" means (unless you actually want to look like a fool).

 

[wellwisher]

More failed "logic". The Big Bang was an expansion of space. It merely continues on at a lower rate. That has been confirmed by testing and observation. You should be asking "how". Not trying to refute that which is far beyond your ken, or even your barbie.

How would one expand space, to simulate this, in a lab, without matter? According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, mass can curve/contract space-time. The more mass we have in the smallest space, the more space-time curves. Changes in mass geometry can easily alter space-time, but how do you do with just space, so it can lead mass?

Say we started with a mass and made note of the curvature of space-time. Next, we explode the mass. Since the mass density would decrease with time, local space-time will expand. How do you get the same affect without matter? Dark matter and dark energy have not been proven to exist in the lab, so you cannot use these until they are lab confirmed. Simulation of space first, in the lab is a magic trick, that still leads with matter since it does not have a bottle of dark matter and energy to work with. Even if you do it in open space with the motions of planets, as they reach their furthest distance apart, this is still mass driven. The space first theory is not lab provable.

Say I had a spherical tank of compressed air, with enough air to bend local space-time, so we can measure this to form a standard. Next, I open a bunch of valves, at all angles, on the surface of the tank and allow the gas to expand into space in 3-D. It will get colder; red shift, and space-time will expand relative to the original center of mass. There is no big bang. In this case, the getting colder means the gas is absorbing energy, as it expands, rather than us adding external energy for an explosion expansion. The gas particles scavenger their own energy. This second scenario uses the second law or entropy. Entropy could cause a red shift and make space-time expand via the second law. This can be shown in the lab, like the above experiment.

If we had universal space-time, formed and then immersed in independent space and time, since independent space and time is far more complex, it defines extreme entropy; infinite entropy. Since our space-time universe is increasing entropy, this reflects a universal movement back in the direction of independent space and time. The constant needed absorption of energy, for universal entropy to increase, within space-time, could come from the infinite entropy and energy of independent space and time. Since entropy increase needs to absorb energy, then infinite entropy would contain infinite energy. This release of energy to space-time, would cause independent space and time to lower entropy; release energy; bridge forms.

This bridge could explain long lived particles like electrons and protons. They see a steady stream of entropic renewal energy from independent space and time via the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. The electron and proton, to name a few particles, stay the same for the life of the universe. Stars and Galaxies are in a constant state of flux at the macro-level and expansion at the universal level, gaining energy; red shift, from the perpetual renewal of a few types of tiny particles that bridge the gap; quantum world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would one expand space, to simulate this, in a lab, without matter? According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, mass can curve/contract space-time. The more mass we have in the smallest space, the more space-time curves. Changes in mass geometry can easily alter space-time, but how do you do with just space, so it can lead mass?

This is an odd question. Why would you need or want to do that?

Say we started with a mass and made note of the curvature of space-time. Next, we explode the mass. Since the mass density would decrease with time, local space-time will expand. How do you get the same affect without matter? Dark matter and dark energy have not been proven to exist in the lab, so you cannot use these until they are lab confirmed. Simulation of space first, in the lab is a magic trick, that still leads with matter since it does not have a bottle of dark matter and energy to work with. Even if you do it in open space with the motions of planets, as they reach their furthest distance apart, this is still mass driven. The space first theory is not lab provable.

Say I had a spherical tank of compressed air, with enough air to bend local space-time, so we can measure this to form a standard. Next, I open a bunch of valves, at all angles, on the surface of the tank and allow the gas to expand into space in 3-D. It will get colder; red shift, and space-time will expand relative to the original center of mass. There is no big bang. In this case, the getting colder means the gas is absorbing energy, as it expands, rather than us adding external energy for an explosion expansion. The gas particles scavenger their own energy. This second scenario uses the second law or entropy. Entropy could cause a red shift and make space-time expand via the second law. This can be shown in the lab, like the above experiment.

If we had universal space-time, formed and then immersed in independent space and time, since independent space and time is far more complex, it defines extreme entropy; infinite entropy. Since our space-time universe is increasing entropy, this reflects a universal movement back in the direction of independent space and time. The constant needed absorption of energy, for universal entropy to increase, within space-time, could come from the infinite entropy and energy of independent space and time. Since entropy increase needs to absorb energy, then infinite entropy would contain infinite energy. This release of energy to space-time, would cause independent space and time to lower entropy; release energy; bridge forms.

This bridge could explain long lived particles like electrons and protons. They see a steady stream of entropic renewal energy from independent space and time via the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. The electron and proton, to name a few particles, stay the same for the life of the universe. Stars and Galaxies are in a constant state of flux at the macro-level and expansion at the universal level, gaining energy; red shift, from the perpetual renewal of a few types of tiny particles that bridge the gap; quantum world.

WTH? Does anyone understand this? Do you understand what you wrote? It appears to be just nonsense. It appears that you do not understand how the scientific method is applied to astronomy.

 

[ratiocinator]

How would one expand space, to simulate this, in a lab, without matter? According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, mass can curve/contract space-time. The more mass we have in the smallest space, the more space-time curves. Changes in mass geometry can easily alter space-time, but how do you do with just space, so it can lead mass?

Say we started with a mass and made note of the curvature of space-time. Next, we explode the mass. Since the mass density would decrease with time, local space-time will expand. How do you get the same affect without matter? Dark matter and dark energy have not been proven to exist in the lab, so you cannot use these until they are lab confirmed. Simulation of space first, in the lab is a magic trick, that still leads with matter since it does not have a bottle of dark matter and energy to work with. Even if you do it in open space with the motions of planets, as they reach their furthest distance apart, this is still mass driven. The space first theory is not lab provable.

Say I had a spherical tank of compressed air, with enough air to bend local space-time, so we can measure this to form a standard. Next, I open a bunch of valves, at all angles, on the surface of the tank and allow the gas to expand into space in 3-D. It will get colder; red shift, and space-time will expand relative to the original center of mass. There is no big bang. In this case, the getting colder means the gas is absorbing energy, as it expands, rather than us adding external energy for an explosion expansion. The gas particles scavenger their own energy. This second scenario uses the second law or entropy. Entropy could cause a red shift and make space-time expand via the second law. This can be shown in the lab, like the above experiment.

If we had universal space-time, formed and then immersed in independent space and time, since independent space and time is far more complex, it defines extreme entropy; infinite entropy. Since our space-time universe is increasing entropy, this reflects a universal movement back in the direction of independent space and time. The constant needed absorption of energy, for universal entropy to increase, within space-time, could come from the infinite entropy and energy of independent space and time. Since entropy increase needs to absorb energy, then infinite entropy would contain infinite energy. This release of energy to space-time, would cause independent space and time to lower entropy; release energy; bridge forms.

This bridge could explain long lived particles like electrons and protons. They see a steady stream of entropic renewal energy from independent space and time via the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. The electron and proton, to name a few particles, stay the same for the life of the universe. Stars and Galaxies are in a constant state of flux at the macro-level and expansion at the universal level, gaining energy; red shift, from the perpetual renewal of a few types of tiny particles that bridge the gap; quantum world.

Wow. So many words without the slightest glimmer of understanding...

 

[Subduction Zone]

What pray tell was wrong with my calculation?
Dismissing it without actually addressing it is circular reasoning because you dismissed it since its refutes evolution and billons of years.

What calculation? I have only seen vague handwaving from you. You mimic things that you do not understand, as you mimicked the form of a logical argument, but when it came down to discussing how one does so properly you ran away because it refuted your "proofs". I saw you post some nonsense today where you did a word salad of math terms. That is not doing the math.

What was the first living creature?

Asked and answered. You complain that it was not a real answer, which made it a perfect response since that was not a real question.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What calculation? I have only seen vague handwaving from you. You mimic things that you do not understand, as you mimicked the form of a logical argument, but when it came down to discussing how one does so properly you ran away because it refuted your "proofs". I saw you post some nonsense today where you did a word salad of math terms. That is not doing the math.

Asked and answered. You complain that it was not a real answer, which made it a perfect response since that was not a real question.

Circular reasoning debate 101 techniques by you shows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Circular reasoning debate 101 techniques by you shows.

I see. You do not understand what circular reasoning is either since you only had the false claim. You did not include the evidence that is required.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I see. You do not understand what circular reasoning is either since you only had the false claim. You did not include the evidence that is required.

I did, you having just now provided a prime example of circular reasoning and having just now fulfilled dozens of Biblical prophecies with exact timing and detail.

What was the first living creature?
What features did it have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did, you having just now provided a prime example of circular reasoning and having just now fulfilled dozens of Biblical prophecies with exact timing and detail.

What was the first living creature?
What features did it have?

No, you didn't.

Pick a fail of yours. We can go over it in detail if you like.

 

[F1fan]

I did, you having just now provided a prime example of circular reasoning and having just now fulfilled dozens of Biblical prophecies with exact timing and detail.

What was the first living creature?
What features did it have?

Notice how those who use science actually offered answers, but you never have. So science wins, and you lost your own challenge.

 

[McBell]

No, you didn't.

Pick a fail of yours. We can go over it in detail if you like.

Wow.
Now they will have to decide which of their never ending fails to choose from.

Decisions are hard Man!

 

[Sargonski]

I see. You do not understand what circular reasoning is either since you only had the false claim. You did not include the evidence that is required.

I did, you having just now provided a prime example of circular reasoning and having just now fulfilled dozens of Biblical prophecies with exact timing and detail.

What was the first living creature?
What features did it have?

SBTL looks to be the one running round in fallacious circles .. claiming the probability of humans coming into existence is (X) .. but giving no support for this made up claim .. followed by repeating claim as if repetition of claim constituted proof of claim.

Then asking others to provide the assumptions made in his calculation ... in the form of silly questions.. to which you are supposed to be providing the answers Friend

So .. what features have you assumed in your calculation mate... this first living creature you have imagined .. and on which you have based your calculation .. and why on earth are you still trying to ressurect this crucified position and admit you have absolutely no idea what the probability of humans coming into existence is.

 

[Sargonski]

What was the first living creature?
What features did it have?

What living creature is that mate .. what ever you make up .. did you not hear the nursery rhyme ? Row Row Row the boat - gently down the stream ? merrily merrily merrily , life is but a dream ?

Prove you are not just having a dream Brother SBTL .. and remember, no assumptions (X) marks the spot ... tell us the probability that "Life is but a dream"

 

[SavedByTheLord]

SBTL looks to be the one running round in fallacious circles .. claiming the probability of humans coming into existence is (X) .. but giving no support for this made up claim .. followed by repeating claim as if repetition of claim constituted proof of claim.

Then asking others to provide the assumptions made in his calculation ... in the form of silly questions.. to which you are supposed to be providing the answers Friend

So .. what features have you assumed in your calculation mate... this first living creature you have imagined .. and on which you have based your calculation .. and why on earth are you still trying to ressurect this crucified position and admit you have absolutely no idea what the probability of humans coming into existence is.

The first living creature would need quite a few features of course. Just to survive it would need quite a few complex protein types and a certain number of each. And of course to reproduce a whole host more.

 

[McBell]

The first living creature would need quite a few features of course. Just to survive it would need quite a few complex protein types and a certain number of each. And of course to reproduce a whole host more.

Bold empty claims.
You are an epic master of them.
Sadly, you are also an epic master of not supporting your claims and running away tail tucked.

 

[Sargonski]

The first living creature would need quite a few features of course. Just to survive it would need quite a few complex protein types and a certain number of each. And of course to reproduce a whole host more.

Ahh Brother SBTL ..Mr. "Prove your claim without assumptions"

Your claim the "probability of humans existing is (x)" is thus false by your own standards of Truth .. as all of the prognostications above are assumptions in your calculation and by association your claim that you have been "Saved by the Lord" is also false ..

Not a good day for Truth .. down the path of the decepticon have you wandered ... as I told you before .. but you did not listen .. nor recant the error of your logic .. which has now been so instrumental in the crucifixions of your positions.

No, you didn't.

Pick a fail of yours. We can go over it in detail if you like.

The path of the deceiver is not one of failure correction Brother Sub D .. running and hiding from error prior to returning to same vomit is what you will see .. in an illogical circle of self deception.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is against the scientific method,

Nope.

And for origins, the Bible is the very word of God, who created all things.

Prove it.

Evolutionists just have already proven false assumptions and get everything wrong based on those.

Nope. You don't understand evolution.

I already proved that God Almighty created all things about 6000 years ago in 6 days and the Bible is the true word of God,

You've proven no such thing. You've just assumed and asserted it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I dd and you waving your hands does not make it go away.

This is just about the worst case of psychological projection I've ever seen.