Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Polymath257]

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."

There are two primary types of nuclear reactions: fission and fusion.

I'm not sure that the reactions themselves are that complex. The *conditions* for the reaction can be problematic to produce, though. The main reason is that the nuclei of the atoms are shielded by the electrons surrounding them.

Fission is where a large nucleus is split into two (sometimes more) smaller nuclei. Fusion is where two small nuclei merge together to form a larger one. To make a large nucleus (like that of uranium) fission, there has to be a source of neutrons directed to that nucleus to make it (more) unstable. It will then split to form a variety of possible smaller nuclei. This is the basis of the atomic bomb.

Fusion has to be at very high temperatures and pressures to get through the shielding effects of the electrons. Stars operate on fusion (not fission): the hydrogen nuclei merge to form larger nuclei (like helium, lithium, boron, carbon, oxygen, etc). This is possible because it is typically millions of degrees in the core of a star and the pressure is also very high. Even at those temperatures and pressures, though, the reactions tend to be very slow.

One of the challenges is to produce fusion reactions here on Earth. Because we want them to happen fairly quickly and because we cannot get the high pressures like in the cores of stars, this requires *very* high temperatures (hundreds of millions of degrees to billions of degrees). To produce such temperatures on Earth is complicated by the fact that we don't want to vaporize the labs surrounding the reactors. Fusion is also used in a hydrogen bomb, but needs a fission bomb as a 'trigger'. So that is a fairly complicated type of thing as well.

The nuclear reactions here are *very* different than chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not involve the nucleus of the atoms at all and the atoms do not change the type of element they are. In nuclear reactions, the type of atom can change.

 

[Astrophile]

Please --

So the proposition must be that nothing was there before the mass that caused the "big bang," or that the mass was always there. Right?

Not necessarily right. As Polymath 257 said, there may not have been a 'before the "big bang"'. If time started at the "big bang", the phrase 'before the "big bang"' is meaningless.

Yes -- kind of like it or not, it's related to the ToE. Because without something being 'there" before evolution on the earth then evolution as proposed would not have happened.

Regardless of what existed or did not exist 'before the "big bang"', matter certainly existed at the time that the Earth was formed (about 9.2 billion years after the "big bang"). This matter included the hydrogen and helium that were formed during the "big bang", and the heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulphur, iron, etc.) that had been produced by nuclear reactions in stars between the "big bang" and the formation of the solar system. This is what is important, not what may have existed 9.2 billion years before the formation of the Earth.

So -- let's work logically and honestly if possible. There should be only two possibilities for the elements that supposedly caused evolution on the earth. One is that the mass that exploded called the "Big Bang" was always there before the explosion or the second possibility is that it was not there and -- the mass came from nothing. Could there be any other possibilities?

I can only repeat my previous answer, that nobody knows whether the mass that exploded was there before the 'big bang' or whether it came into existence at the 'big bang', or whether there are other possibilities. What we are fairly sure of is that immediately after 'time zero' the universe was in the form of a 'soup' of elementary particles and that as it expanded and cooled these elementary particles 'condensed' into electrons and nuclei of hydrogen, helium and lithium. After a few hundred million years, this hydrogen and helium formed into clouds of gas that contracted and collapsed to form the first stars.

Now if that's too hard to answer, or you feel it's not integral to the discussion, can you please give the basic scientific answer as to what elements started life on the earth (by life for this discussion I mean evolution)

Again, I can only repeat that the first life on Earth consisted of the same chemical elements that modern living things consist of: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, calcium, chlorine, iron, etc., and that, with the exception of hydrogen, these elements were produced by nuclear fusion reactions in stars before the Earth was formed. So far as I understand it, 'life' is not some external 'element' that has to be added to a system of organic chemicals to make it work; it is an emergent property of the chemical system.

 

[rational experiences]

If you were going to be a God human as first human. Consciousness human. Thinker is the same human.

You say when I never existed in biology body type nor did any thesis. As human biology innate is personal aware first. As an adult your O cells change constantly says the God thinker of biology. Your god self always was the human thinking.

Always conscious first. Ideas all from self body own cell activity human.

Yet not bodily present by thin king not at any time do you the thinker remove thinking also. As accuracy. No human no theist no science.

Is exact correct human only advice.

Exact taught human status no man is God concluded against self destructive human personalities. A disorder named egotism.

As nature free will in its will is each self presence....is present exactly the moment observed only and exists without any human explanation.

So if you look at a crustacean you say it lived whatever years ago. Is exact to the moment of its presence. Not now present.

If it's alive now it's age is not the dead thing you studied. Ignored as the God teaching to a scientist liar.

Hence the bible statement. Men of scientific Satanism gives names to states destroyed life presence of gods body. Earth mass.

Ignored relevance. You men were hurt as you removed God earths body.

Compare my living body to a chemical I don't even exist.

The God.

As the smart minded theist by ego talks elements chemistry as if it is of the earth. First himself. Human.

You stand on science is what you Inherit he says rock. Yet a planet isn't a formula a thesis said by a human only wanting formula advice for machine reactions.

So God in a theist human argument is and was always first direct to the machine. God earth. Gods machine. Gods reaction machine.

As the theist. The human only.

As all humans know claiming I know how we got created doesn't in any place take a human away from really existing. Just because you talk about us. Ignored as relevant human egotism.

As your thesis thinking talking did not in any type of activity create us. Otherwise your claim I the God human invented you for a machines reaction.

The first reason you invented statements of human science.

By alchemical planned designs. Built. Then to once again twice alter earths mass as God. For machines actually. Only machines as the reasons you are theorising.

As medical biology human is stated to advise body health assistance medical biology science. Direct human human.

Not machine thesis.

Sin holes sink holes man's constant scientific cause the sun worshipper. Says when I thesis biology chemistry s theme only then earth by machines gets a sink hole the total reasonings I used are instantly totally gone.

As if I had totally removed a human the machine and the reaction. As first theories. I caused total god earth opposition.

As the God theist claim I know.

Why the law society took scientific control away from science as religion..sciences owned historic beginnings theist destroyer into social judgements.

As all humans are equal first.

Nuclear consuming.

Just so he gives himself moments to own converted mass for use in machines only. Dusts direct to dusts converted move back in time not to nuclear first to spatial destruction first then nuclear. As he uses the space to transport mass back in time to not existing.

As nuclear was never back in time it was space mass presence already converted.

So then his machine overheats tries to blow up. To shift also by designers causes. Human.

Notified.

If you base all ideas on chemistry and God earth then a hole in earth says the total removal of any theory you ever theoried is and was your human equals answer.

As Proof egotists human destroy our life on gods earth just because they can.

 

[gnostic]

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."

I think you are missing the points.

Nuclear reaction, whether it be "nuclear fusion" or "nuclear fission", changes the atom itself...meaning it change the atomic nucleus or nuclei, either

1. adding protons to the nucleus (hence fusion), or
   
2. reducing the number of protons within the nucleus (hence fission).

These changes will result in turning atom into a different atom.

To give you examples of what I mean by changing the atom, let say one proton is added to the nitrogen nucleus, through nuclear fusion. Nitrogen normally have 7 protons, so increasing the number of proton even by 1 proton, that atom will no longer be nitrogen atom; instead this atom will become oxygen (which have 8 protons within its nucleus).

Likewise, if a nitrogen loses 1 proton (through nuclear fission), then this atom will become carbon (which have 6 protons inside carbon's nucleus).

This is what nuclear physics all about. The examples I have given above, are nuclear reaction, not chemical reaction.

Chemical reaction don't change the atomic nuclei of atoms. In the chemical reaction, the number of protons within the nucleus of the atom WILL REMAIN "UNCHANGED".

So in Polymath257's example of water molecule, it comprise of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, bonded molecularly. This bond occurred due to oxygen losing two electrons, but the two hydrogen atoms will join a positive-charged oxygen atom...so the water molecule is electrical neutral.

The nuclei of these 3 atoms will not change, there are no addition or missing protons to any of these nuclei, because this is a CHEMICAL REACTION, not a NUCLEAR REACTION.

But since this topic (thread's topic) is about Evolution, not about Nuclear Physics, then nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are irrelevant.

Everything in life, everything about biology, is about biological molecules or biological compounds, like cells, chromosomes, proteins, DNA, genetics, metabolism, blood, tissues, hair, hearts, lungs, mutation, etc, all have to do with biology and biochemistry, and nothing to with nuclear fission or with nuclear fusion.

Hopefully you will learn something here.

What you quoted from the Free Dictionary about the definition of nuclear fission, is correct, but it has nothing to do with Evolution, and nothing to do with biology, because nuclear reaction is a different field altogether.

 

[rational experiences]

Another way of explaining a theory to machine using theists.

A computer.
A data mind contact encoded program. About contacting biological human via Ai conditions.
The satellite.

None of which is human biology.

Is involved in atmospheric biological experiments about Phi and sound waves light. I want God. I claim I know God I can't find God I want God.

Father said to explain relativity to a lying human man my female life is never ever by your man's adult life human mind body ever going to equal as father.

Ever.

Your claim what a liar I am as a psychic spiritual natural life attacked. Psychic reckoned by consciousness. As I am a female.

Your own claim you female are never correct as you aren't the holy father. Is your own already known taught ignored mind status. I know you put me in contact with feedback of mans own designs. His machine use.

You are pressing the buttons one side. I receive your advice non machine lying inhumanity. Theist. Secret science he says.

Is your owned expressed ego mental condition. By thoughts beliefs shared group thesis intent I want.

I want first is not natural as first you are natural with natural.

Is basic human basics

Not accepted by arrogant egotists men I want God the father liars.

I will never be father so give it up scientist.

Why human law became socially controlled.

 

[gnostic]

There is a couple of things I forgot to include in my explanation about “chemical reaction” part.

When atom lose its electron(s), it doesn’t the atom’s nucleus.

For instance, if i reuse my nitrogen example, to illustrate some points.

Let’s say, a single nitrogen loses a single electron, this nitrogen won’t become carbon atom.

Losing one or more electron, the nitrogen will still be a nitrogen atom; nitrogen atom will still have 7 protons within the nucleus. You can even stripped the nitrogen of all its electrons, and it will still be a nitrogen atom.

What will change is the nitrogen atom will become a positive charged nitrogen atom.

To make nitrogen electrically neutral again, the atom will need to gain electrons to match the number of protons in the nitrogen nucleus...or, it needs to bond with one or more other atoms.

The same thing will happen, if the nitrogen atom gain or lose a neutron or two: the nitrogen will still be nitrogen atom.

What will change with nitrogen atom, the atom will become a different nitrogen isotope(s).

 

[rational experiences]

There is a couple of things I forgot to include in my explanation about “chemical reaction” part.

When atom lose its electron(s), it doesn’t the atom’s nucleus.

For instance, if i reuse my nitrogen example, to illustrate some points.

Let’s say, a single nitrogen loses a single electron, this nitrogen won’t become carbon atom.

Losing one or more electron, the nitrogen will still be a nitrogen atom; nitrogen atom will still have 7 protons within the nucleus. You can even stripped the nitrogen of all its electrons, and it will still be a nitrogen atom.

What will change is the nitrogen atom will become a positive charged nitrogen atom.

To make nitrogen electrically neutral again, the atom will need to gain electrons to match the number of protons in the nitrogen nucleus...or, it needs to bond with one or more other atoms.

The same thing will happen, if the nitrogen atom gain or lose a neutron or two: the nitrogen will still be nitrogen atom.

What will change with nitrogen atom, the atom will become a different nitrogen isotope(s).

In life humans are two.

In science a theist is one the man who invented science.

One human woman is left. His beginnings. With no man to life continue as one human.

He wants to create electricity in creation himself by invention only.

As lightning is caused in earths mass heavens number one place energy first.

As he knows electricity does not exist.

Memory of man voice heard after ice old old man's previous science thesis pyramid.

I invented coal. Life destroyed was biological in man's science owned memories that he consciously accesses today.

He knows he personally invented earths coal. Memory said causes of man's science. Why he says new science history begins at coal.

So he personally says as I invented coal then I can also invent electricity.

One worse historic memento than coal existing by science.

To consciousness ...as I'm not a scientist does that mean no earth mass either in earths fused O planet fusion? One worse history as no earth at all left by scientist.

Just wondering.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are two primary types of nuclear reactions: fission and fusion.

I'm not sure that the reactions themselves are that complex. The *conditions* for the reaction can be problematic to produce, though. The main reason is that the nuclei of the atoms are shielded by the electrons surrounding them.

Fission is where a large nucleus is split into two (sometimes more) smaller nuclei. Fusion is where two small nuclei merge together to form a larger one. To make a large nucleus (like that of uranium) fission, there has to be a source of neutrons directed to that nucleus to make it (more) unstable. It will then split to form a variety of possible smaller nuclei. This is the basis of the atomic bomb.

Fusion has to be at very high temperatures and pressures to get through the shielding effects of the electrons. Stars operate on fusion (not fission): the hydrogen nuclei merge to form larger nuclei (like helium, lithium, boron, carbon, oxygen, etc). This is possible because it is typically millions of degrees in the core of a star and the pressure is also very high. Even at those temperatures and pressures, though, the reactions tend to be very slow.

One of the challenges is to produce fusion reactions here on Earth. Because we want them to happen fairly quickly and because we cannot get the high pressures like in the cores of stars, this requires *very* high temperatures (hundreds of millions of degrees to billions of degrees). To produce such temperatures on Earth is complicated by the fact that we don't want to vaporize the labs surrounding the reactors. Fusion is also used in a hydrogen bomb, but needs a fission bomb as a 'trigger'. So that is a fairly complicated type of thing as well.

The nuclear reactions here are *very* different than chemical reactions. Chemical reactions do not involve the nucleus of the atoms at all and the atoms do not change the type of element they are. In nuclear reactions, the type of atom can change.

While this is all very interesting and fascinating, it does show that there are forces we as human beings do not understand behind all the principles of these reactions. Plus enormous energy. Meanwhile, none of this proves (to me) that what is written in Genesis about the succession of life on the earth is not true. Again, thanks for your explanations. Fascinating and appreciated.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not necessarily right. As Polymath 257 said, there may not have been a 'before the "big bang"'. If time started at the "big bang", the phrase 'before the "big bang"' is meaningless.



Regardless of what existed or did not exist 'before the "big bang"', matter certainly existed at the time that the Earth was formed (about 9.2 billion years after the "big bang"). This matter included the hydrogen and helium that were formed during the "big bang", and the heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulphur, iron, etc.) that had been produced by nuclear reactions in stars between the "big bang" and the formation of the solar system. This is what is important, not what may have existed 9.2 billion years before the formation of the Earth.



I can only repeat my previous answer, that nobody knows whether the mass that exploded was there before the 'big bang' or whether it came into existence at the 'big bang', or whether there are other possibilities. What we are fairly sure of is that immediately after 'time zero' the universe was in the form of a 'soup' of elementary particles and that as it expanded and cooled these elementary particles 'condensed' into electrons and nuclei of hydrogen, helium and lithium. After a few hundred million years, this hydrogen and helium formed into clouds of gas that contracted and collapsed to form the first stars.



Again, I can only repeat that the first life on Earth consisted of the same chemical elements that modern living things consist of: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, calcium, chlorine, iron, etc., and that, with the exception of hydrogen, these elements were produced by nuclear fusion reactions in stars before the Earth was formed. So far as I understand it, 'life' is not some external 'element' that has to be added to a system of organic chemicals to make it work; it is an emergent property of the chemical system.

By the way, as we know there are posters here that assert it is possible and likely that other types of beings evolved (?) maybe way out in the universe. (Far away from the earth) I was just watching a trailer for a movie about a true life person who claims to have been abducted by aliens, then somehow brought back to earth (?) again. I personally have no interest in seeing the movie based on "real life," however what I noticed and fascinated me slightly was that the "aliens" had heads with two eyes -- looking like sci-fi monsters (I'll say they look like monsters). So I guess someone will say, "well that's just the way it happened - chemically with aliens two eyes developed near their forehead."

 

[rational experiences]

While this is all very interesting and fascinating, it does show that there are forces we as human beings do not understand behind all the principles of these reactions. Plus enormous energy. Meanwhile, none of this proves (to me) that what is written in Genesis about the succession of life on the earth is not true. Again, thanks for your explanations. Fascinating and appreciated.

In our heavens surrounding earth first is infinite space that surrounds a human scientist beginning mass to build with and from. Huge energy source God the earth.

A thought only.

Then a volcano not rock erupts. Great power...great reaction. Hot dense mass. Another thought. Yet Alchemy rock supported presence was of hot dense mass history.

Then gases cooled. Magic event became clear not cloudy.

Then another reason hot dense eruption sun. Gases set alight. Not clear anymore goes back in time cooling densely clouds.

No scientist owns that string of thoughts God the earth did.

What he told himself. A greedy man wanting the power of God becomes the place of no man.

 

[rational experiences]

Aliens.

Man's word. A lie N.

Nile A. History of meaning of advice. Reason why old science causes.

AI. Artificial causes said man's words.

Only science practiced introduced artificial causes by substance of a changed God.

Humans on earth biological one less body biological the ape. Advice the living conscious self only. No dead quotes allowed.

Ape then human. Two bodies the answer closest in science word said science. Living.

Closest by two is correct.

O pi and O Phi crossing. In vibration oscillation burning cooling produces emerges eyes the AI term emerge. As in water cooling studies it had been proven already fake.

. AI fake.
. AI design by metals.
.AI reactions nuclear metals.

Human biology not metal.

. Cloaking dense cloud mass coverage is disappearance.
. Lift off floating cooling above trying to suck up ground heat.
.mind brain defect. Biology chemical.
.mind brains designer machines and the communication system.

.AI computer satellite human mind the controller looking by AI into out of space themselves. Humans using AI technologies.

Cause effect AI attack human victim of the human scientist.

History radiowave particles. Star asteroid disintegrating particles travelling everywhere from crossing earths heated space paths. Travels long distances itself.

Particles from star comes into higher heavens.

The reasoned advice.

.AI a humans experience is a human first.
.gases of metals burns leaves identification marks on biology as contacted. Experience only.

 

[shunyadragon]

So some chemicals combine. The chemicals were already there.

First, need some work on your English. Simplistic and not meaningful to the subject..Yes the chemicals already existed

'Some chemicals?' All of our physical existence combine chemicals based on Natural Laws, natural processes, and the environment. Abiogenesis and evolution takes place based on Natural Laws, natural processes, and the environment. Yes the chemicals already exist throughout the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

While this is all very interesting and fascinating, it does show that there are forces we as human beings do not understand behind all the principles of these reactions. Plus enormous energy. Meanwhile, none of this proves (to me) that what is written in Genesis about the succession of life on the earth is not true. Again, thanks for your explanations. Fascinating and appreciated.

Well, I was answering questions. You didn't ask why I think the Biblical story is false.

 

[Astrophile]

By the way, as we know there are posters here that assert it is possible and likely that other types of beings evolved (?) maybe way out in the universe. (Far away from the earth) I was just watching a trailer for a movie about a true life person who claims to have been abducted by aliens, then somehow brought back to earth (?) again. I personally have no interest in seeing the movie based on "real life," however what I noticed and fascinated me slightly was that the "aliens" had heads with two eyes -- looking like sci-fi monsters (I'll say they look like monsters). So I guess someone will say, "well that's just the way it happened - chemically with aliens two eyes developed near their forehead."

I am an astronomer, not a biologist, and I am not particularly interested in extra-terrestrial life, nor do I set much store by accounts of UFOs and abduction by aliens. In any case, these stories have nothing to do with evolution or cosmology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am an astronomer, not a biologist, and I am not particularly interested in extra-terrestrial life, nor do I set much store by accounts of UFOs and abduction by aliens. In any case, these stories have nothing to do with evolution.

Unfortunately they do. Because - evoluition supposedly started a long time ago on the earth. Now it seems that human life is the latest evolutionary development. Do you agree with that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, I was answering questions. You didn't ask why I think the Biblical story is false.

We were talking about evolution and the possibilities. I do thank you for your detailed and respectful analysis answering several questions about elements and their constituents.

 

[rational experiences]

The theist says chemicals in their base natural forms. Exist.

They live just as a human theirselves.

I am a human so are you.

Imagine. Which is what theists for do.
Imagine you don't theory...you still exist. Just a human.

Then ask yourself a real question why do you pretend you don't exist by subjects you choose?

Real answer as I theoried to design create myself.

As the designer creator scientist.

How you came about pretending you owned god by man's life.

Yet you only were the human making claims.

Status I don't own anything else.

I live on. I live within.

If either two preceding masses didn't exist nor would I.

Pretty basic question what are you theorising for.

As first the human who thinks is biologically conscious of the just a human bodies processes.

You infer to your own being as if your body type somehow represents how form formed.

And you are possessed by your imposed just a human status.

Was why humans were named our destroyer. By self human conditions. And why humans said no man is God.

Two preceding masses both owning different spatial pressures holding form.

Conversion I knowingly gain artificial by converting mass going back into non presence only. If I stop converting mass can evolve changed. By de evolving not by time by process.

Thinks.

Says I believe that it is how original substance one type must have changed its own body types.

In converting.

So as the human he says I think God earth status is like human science it's artificial presences. By my terms of experimental studies.

How a conscious human claimed hierarchy as a man over creation by thoughts only.

As he invents designs created invents then chooses by mind machine control. He then made an ego status I am the God controller by machine.

No human however no science either. Pretty basic no argument actually.

How and why men just humans felt controlling powerfully wielding machines.

As like God the earth a machine not controlled can't hurt me. It was your human choices only.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Unfortunately they do. Because - evoluition supposedly started a long time ago on the earth. Now it seems that human life is the latest evolutionary development. Do you agree with that?

One of more recent ones to cause waves was the then novel corona virus that emerged in 2019.

 

[YoursTrue]

One of more recent ones to cause waves was the then novel corona virus that emerged in 2019.

It is still a virus.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unfortunately they do. Because - evoluition supposedly started a long time ago on the earth. Now it seems that human life is the latest evolutionary development. Do you agree with that?

Technically, everything alive today is the latest evolutionary development. Not just humans.