Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[rational experiences]

When I was brain burnt I saw a lot of cosmic recorded visions of old earth.

Recorded in stars gases proven by images such as a biological lion in a star gas image. Transmitted put out from earth as old UFO attack science fallout.

Earth was sitting still as a seemingly dead carbon black body no heavens... no movement.

So it reblasted to cover over the carbon coal mass. Destroyed sciences earth life was his created invention where electricity came from as coal.

As only science invented electricity for machines a direct liar.

His psyche knows science invented earths coal himself. It's in his memories.

Proven to my mind hurt. He proved himself our destroyer.

Earth Began to move again. As earth is a stone ark moving by gas propulsion.

I asked why does my brother thesis evil as his wants. Origins that he knows earth gained?

Father said he knew the moon hadn't hit earth. Yet he theories how it could have. AI then records shares that advice. New science given back to his subliminal psyche.

As a wandering star.

Time shift earth origins a thesis. I want. Earth crystalline facure owned O whole immaculate heavens once. Back in time by a thesis only.

Back in reality time before the suns big bang.

Back in real time gases burning. As he cannot take back the big bang. Yet he pretends in thoughts he does.

Space time earth zero O body plus heavens clear. His want. He theoried I want this origin today.

Yet liars use O clock 1 to 12 by light and life to apply maths.

Yet now quantify his thesis is on earths origin dark cold clear zero time yet uses light time clock saying he isn't.

A direct lie.

What a lying human mind theist does. Lies about first natural conscious self one human first before thesis to think.

Our lifes destroyer.

He was assessed before as a personality type who coerced using one thesis whilst imposing something completely different.

Direct machine reasoned built reaction only inside machine. What he personally places inside the machine from his Alchemy only. So he imposes two machines instead of one machine one reaction.

By Alchemy.

Outwardly he theories everything natural first. So science argues one thesis as he secretly imposes another.

His behaviour known.

The alchemist was outlawed. Known coercer.

 

[YoursTrue]

The notion of an anthropomorphic deity willing the universe into existence from nothing for no apparent reason doesn't make sense to me, AND there is exactly ZERO corroboration/evidence/data that even hints at such nonsense, let alone that the deity in question was the one that slaughtered unborn children for being in the uteri of mothers that did not worship him.

The more I think about it, the more I study the Bible, the more I realize there IS a God, He IS the Creator, He lets Himself be known via the Bible to a large extent, can reach the heart of people, and things (molecules, atoms, aqueous sutstances) did not just come about by themselves (as in magic type stuff). Oh. Or evolution of animate or inanimate objects.

 

[YoursTrue]

Phospholipids form bilayers spontaneously in aqueous solution. It does not 'just happen'. It is due to the molecules shape and the conditions in which the molecules exist.

Again -- the items that combined to form combinations were there before they formed these combinations such as procaryotes and eucaryotes.

 

[YoursTrue]

The notion of an anthropomorphic deity willing the universe into existence from nothing for no apparent reason doesn't make sense to me, AND there is exactly ZERO corroboration/evidence/data that even hints at such nonsense, let alone that the deity in question was the one that slaughtered unborn children for being in the uteri of mothers that did not worship him.

I can't explain God except for that which I understand. To understand what came before that which is considered the "Big Bang" is not something our minds can easily grasp. And what I know about God's personality is basically that which I understand from the Bible. One can look at evolution and say that evolution of the mind and body is what causes so much tragedy, right?

 

[rational experiences]

As science said I confessed the poles of earth shifted by giant pyramid technology and life died.

Then living cells went into erupting volcanic vents. Via water mass.

Yet we were alive then with those cells. Just as we are today.

If science says I believe water was created in space darkness then snap frozen. Held by pressure frozen then it's not relative to gas out of rock as volcanic history.

So water is nowhere near space or a sun history on earth. At ground holding.

Science wrong as we live inside of water mass that itself was created in dark space. Yet it is held to the ground.

Yet now it's not. Because of atmospheric science caused changes. Between space empty and water ground is gases. Gases burn separate clear into cooling lights. Reflect in water.

Yet they are not separate as they are clear first.

We get to view that separate gases exist in our heavens to claim that cause involved life of human babies were being sacrificed.

Yet clear gas is not a colour as water is not a colour either.

Why the heavens cloak teaching said it was inherited only. A teaching from holy men of wisdom.

The advice by theists state I knew in science that it occurred. As the bible confessed what men of science had caused.

As scientists today also are aware of the same reasoning it proves science knowingly would accept human sacrifice.

 

[shunyadragon]

Polymath25 seemed to understand.

Polymorth25's response aside Waiting for a coherent scientific based posts that relate to the subject of the thread worthy of responding to.

Your post was simply some sort of assertion aimed at abiogenesis (?), and actually not the orignal subject of the thread.

 

[Polymath257]

None of them is simple.

None of what? The elements? Soil? Flesh?

Soil, as we know it, came after living things. It has a fairly large amount of decaying and decayed material from living things. Before that, it was minerals from different types of rocks.

The elements come mostly from previous stars, although hydrogen comes from the very early Big Bang, and larger elements like gold come from merging neutron stars.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. The aqueous solution had to be there though.

All that means is that water had to be there along with other dissolved chemicals. And most of those chemicals we know occur in space anyway.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can't explain God except for that which I understand. To understand what came before that which is considered the "Big Bang" is not something our minds can easily grasp. And what I know about God's personality is basically that which I understand from the Bible. One can look at evolution and say that evolution of the mind and body is what causes so much tragedy, right?

Sort of an interesting choice: Did God cause all the suffering or what you describe is suffering is a product of the natural nature of our physical existence.

What would be the reason God would cause all the suffering?

 

[Polymath257]

Again -- the items that combined to form combinations were there before they formed these combinations such as procaryotes and eucaryotes.

Yes. And the question of abiogenesis is how those previously existing chemicals combined to form life. The question of evolution is how that life then diversified. The formation of the chemicals and the elements that make up those chemicals is yet another question. And, for the most part, we understand the processes involved.

 

[gnostic]

Sort of an interesting choice: Did God cause all the suffering or what you describe is suffering is a product of the natural nature of our physical existence.

What would be the reason God would cause all the suffering?

He would be brutally sadistic god, a personification of tyranny or of evil...not someone I would worship.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes but to make a membrane, and with dna strands doesn't make sense to me that it just happened, evolved chemically by attraction. What other reason beyond chemical attraction or innate chemical force could there be to put all this together over and over again?

No other reason is needed.

Life is being assembled from nonlife using chemicals and their affinities every minute of every day. Nobody is in the womb building a fetus, just non-living chemicals passively assembling themselves into life using chemistry alone. DNA strands are being created de novo with each mitosis or meiosis using only chemical means - enzymes unzipping double helices and generating new strands according to the chemical structure of the bases in nucleotides, and which ones can pair up with which others according to their geometries and distribution of charges.

It is likely that life exists wherever possible, and where it does, always arises through abiogeneis. The argument is thermodynamic, and involves the formation of dissipative structures to capture and channel energy more efficiently whenever circumstances permit. It's why tornadoes and hurricanes self organize air and water into far from equilibrium structures if given a source of energy such as in the atmosphere and oceans, and why they are more frequent, more powerful, and more persistent as global temperatures rise. It's why there is a relatively red spot (storm) on Jupiter, and a hexagon on the poles of Saturn.

An interesting and innovate young scientist, Jeremy England, says, "You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant." Admittedly, this all still pretty speculative, but if correct, it predicts that life will be forming whenever it can, like ice. Provide an environment where water can freeze, and it will, every time. Establish conditions to create and sustain a tornado, and one will every time.

Also, life is evolving everywhere is can. Every time a genetic variant gives an organism a selective advantage that can penetrate a population's gene pool, it will. This is how nature is. Every time a boulder can roll down a hill, it will. every time the conditions are right for rain, it rains, not just some times. And it seems likely that anywhere that life can arise and evolve, it will according to the same principles as rain falling, water freezing, boulders rolling, and storms forming - physics, of which chemistry is a subset, biology being a special case of chemistry and physics.

Also, you might like to note that if by "it doesn't make sense to me" you mean more than that you don't understand it, specifically, if you are using that as a basis to rue the idea out, your are committing an incredulity fallacy: "I can't see how it could happen, therefore it didn't." You didn't say that, but if that's how you feel, you might want to consider that abiogenesis might have happened anyway, even if it isn't apparent to you how.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. And the question of abiogenesis is how those previously existing chemicals combined to form life. The question of evolution is how that life then diversified. The formation of the chemicals and the elements that make up those chemicals is yet another question. And, for the most part, we understand the processes involved.

So some chemicals combine. The chemicals were already there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. And the question of abiogenesis is how those previously existing chemicals combined to form life. The question of evolution is how that life then diversified. The formation of the chemicals and the elements that make up those chemicals is yet another question. And, for the most part, we understand the processes involved.

These particular chemicals existed before they attached to others (however you phrase it) to form life, right? Does anyone know how they got to be existing before they combined with others and set off combustion to make life? So these elements were just there. And when and where did they get together (combine)?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. And the question of abiogenesis is how those previously existing chemicals combined to form life. The question of evolution is how that life then diversified. The formation of the chemicals and the elements that make up those chemicals is yet another question. And, for the most part, we understand the processes involved.

The thing is the eucaryotes are rather complex in themselves.

 

[ppp]

The thing is the eucaryotes are rather complex in themselves.

The eukaryotes did not come along till a billion and a half years after life started.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of what? The elements? Soil? Flesh?

Soil and flesh and the elements to make soil and flesh. None of them are simple.

 

[Polymath257]

So some chemicals combine. The chemicals were already there.

Let's do a couple of examples. Water is a chemical. A molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen combined together. Methane is another chemical. A molecule of methane consists of four atoms of hydrogen and one atom of carbon combined together. Ethanol is another chemical. A molecule of ethanol consists of six atoms of hydrogen, two atoms of carbon and one atom of oxygen combined together.

Now, chemicals can undergo reactions with other chemicals where the atoms get exchanged. But the atoms themselves are not destroyed nor are new atoms created.

So, yes, before the first life there were simple chemicals. Those chemicals reacted with each other, forming more complex chemicals. At a certain level of complexity, we have life.

These particular chemicals existed before they attached to others (however you phrase it) to form life, right? Does anyone know how they got to be existing before they combined with others and set off combustion to make life? So these elements were just there. And when and where did they get together (combine)?

First, the elements are those chemicals consisting of only one type of atom. So, for example, carbon is an element. It consists only of carbon atoms. Diamond is also a form of the element carbon: a diamond also consists of carbon atoms.

The elements (the atoms) form inside of stars, during the explosion of stars, or the merger of neutron stars. The crucial part is the nucleus of the atom. Those are formed by nuclear reactions. Later, electrons get added on to form the 'neutral' atom.

After the star explodes, the atoms are distributed into space and end up forming large clouds of gas and dust. These large clouds are where new stars form. The sun and the planets in our solar system formed from such a cloud about 5 billion years ago.

So the main elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, silicon, iron, etc) were in that cloud and were the basic materials from which the Earth formed. They 'got together' when the Earth formed from them. Later, those atoms were involved in the chemical reactions that lead to life.

Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. It is based on the exchange and combination of just a few types of atoms, mostly carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus, etc. If you look at the periodic table, these are mostly fairly small atoms that are among the most common in the universe.

And, yes, if you have these atoms, they *will* combine to form simple molecules: water, methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, etc. So these chemicals existed on the early Earth because those atoms combined to form them. Some of that combination actually happened before the Earth was formed.

The thing is the eucaryotes are rather complex in themselves.

Yes, eucaryotes came after the simpler procaryotes.

 

[Polymath257]

Soil and flesh and the elements to make soil and flesh. None of them are simple.

Those are not elements. Those are both very complex mixtures of chemicals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's do a couple of examples. Water is a chemical. A molecule of water consists of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen combined together. Methane is another chemical. A molecule of methane consists of four atoms of hydrogen and one atom of carbon combined together. Ethanol is another chemical. A molecule of ethanol consists of six atoms of hydrogen, two atoms of carbon and one atom of oxygen combined together.

OK, so far I understand. As I keep delving, and thank you for your simple, non-insulting answers, I looked up what it means to split an atom. And amazingly (yes, it amazes me) -- here's what the definition is, in part:
"Nuclear fission
An extremely complex nuclear reaction representing a cataclysmic division of an atomic nucleus into two nuclei of comparable mass. This rearrangement or division of a heavy nucleus may take place naturally (spontaneous fission) or under bombardment with neutrons, charged particles, gamma rays, or other carriers of energy (induced fission)" Splitting the atom | Article about Splitting the atom by The Free Dictionary
(My reaction -- wow.)
My conclusion so far is concordant with "an extremely complex nuclear reaction..." And no wonder. Yes, no wonder it is termed as "extremely complex."