The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

(1) That the structure of even the simplest living cell is supposedly devastating for evolution.

(2) That DNA is an abstract coding system that points to intelligence.

(3) That the gaps in the fossil record have got worse, not better, since Darwin's time.

(4) Evolution supposedly offers no explanation for how new organs can form.

I do not think it necessary for me to comment on this.

I don't think it's necessary for anyone to comment on this stuff we've debunked a thousand times already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it's necessary for anyone to comment on this stuff we've debunked a thousand times already.

It was a bad sign when the thread started with an article that was full of PRATT's.

 

[Viker]

(1) That the structure of even the simplest living cell is supposedly devastating for evolution.

(2) That DNA is an abstract coding system that points to intelligence.

(3) That the gaps in the fossil record have got worse, not better, since Darwin's time.

(4) Evolution supposedly offers no explanation for how new organs can form.

I do not think it necessary for me to comment on this.

Thank you. I don't think I need to comment too much further either. I didn't know it was basically the same stuff that's been debunked here and everywhere else repeatedly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. I don't think I need to comment too much further either. I didn't know it was basically the same stuff that's been debunked here and everywhere else repeatedly.

With a rather irregular periodicity, a new creationist comes along ignorant of the past and replete with long defrocked claims as if they were brand new and never-before-seen silver bullets to bring down science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With a rather irregular periodicity, a new creationist comes along ignorant of the past and replete with long defrocked claims as if they were brand new and never-before-seen silver bullets to bring down science.

And they never seem to want to have a discussion, no matter how much noise that they make to that effect. They are merely here to preach.

 

[John53]

With a rather irregular periodicity, a new creationist comes along ignorant of the past and replete with long defrocked claims as if they were brand new and never-before-seen silver bullets to bring down science.

Then disappears a few days later.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The time discrepancy has to do with Relativity and time dilation.

That makes no sense.
Relativity and time dilation play no part in dating stuff on this planet.

The amount of snow-ice layers in ice cores from the poles alone, already blows "couple thousand years ago" out of the water.
Tree rings also. Geological layers even more so. Rock dating as well. There's inumerable ways we can demonstrate that "it's all a couple thousands years old only" is about as wrong as saying that the US from east to west coast measures about 5 miles.

If you assume each day in Genesis is an earth day, then it does not make sense in terms of the differences in science time scale and Genesis time scale. However, why would God use an earth day, at the BB event, when the earth had not yet formed? Humans added that assumption before they understood relativity.

Does god live on a planet that rotates on its own axis and which orbits a star which gives the planet a day-night cycle?

Because that's what is implied by the word "day".

To make one God day equal to 13.7 billion years on earth, God would need to be almost in a speed of light reference. to get the needed time dilation. To then create the solar system; sun and earth, on another day, which took 6 billion years, his reference would still be close to the speed of light, but somewhat less. Creating life, then modern animals each lowers the science time scale meaning further and further reduction from the speed of light reference equivalent; relativistic slow down in time reference, until God becomes man and he is in earth reference.

You're not making any sense.
What is a "god day"?

If I did this same analysis with an aliens and alien technology, you would accept it.

Are you sure about that?

As far as Evolution, it can not be fully correct, until water gets the proper billing on the theory. Water is able to integrate and thereby lower randomness. Casino science is less important if water is included. Casino science and the black box adds subjectivity. Rational science does not use a black box and whims of the gods.

A glass of water is held together with hydrogen bonding, which is the strongest secondary bonding force. Secondary bonding can create reversible structures. With water this is taken to the extreme, since each water molecule can form four hydrogen bonds, with other water molecules. This can create a large reversible matrix.

If I add organic things to the glass of water, with water remaining the dominant phase, this addition will break some hydrogen bonds of water and add surface tension, This adds hydrogen bonding potential to the water matrix. Water will rearrange the store to minimize this potential. In cells, the water will pack freshly made protein to minimize the water potential. All aspects of Life, lives under the same constant regional water constraints down to the nanoscale. Evolutionary steps will all need to accommodate the global affect of the water matrix. Not all change is optimized, however sweet spots are possible.


The amount of hydration; water activity, can impact the final conformation of the active DNA. Since B-DNA is predominate in nature and needs the most hydration, the activity of the water needs to be high, with water having a say in terms of what molecules needed to be in the cell for that goal.

Most of the mutation changes on the DNA are not coding genes, but what are called junk genes. If we add a change to the junk genes it may not be directly noticeable. However, the junk genes, as a whole, are connected to the configuration potential of the DNA in water. This can be used to leverage coding gene expression. The water will not allow a run away expression that causes it potential to keep rising. Something will need to happen. If anything it will push the other way to water can lower the global aqueous potential; evolution.

Can you rephrase this word salad in a way that it actually makes a bit of sense?

 

[wellwisher]

That makes no sense.
Relativity and time dilation play no part in dating stuff on this planet.

The amount of snow-ice layers in ice cores from the poles alone, already blows "couple thousand years ago" out of the water.
Tree rings also. Geological layers even more so. Rock dating as well. There's inumerable ways we can demonstrate that "it's all a couple thousands years old only" is about as wrong as saying that the US from east to west coast measures about 5 miles.




Does god live on a planet that rotates on its own axis and which orbits a star which gives the planet a day-night cycle?

Because that's what is implied by the word "day".



You're not making any sense.
What is a "god day"?




Are you sure about that?


Can you rephrase this word salad in a way that it actually makes a bit of sense?

Are you familiar with Einstein's theory of special relativity. The way we see space and time, is reference dependent. Space and time is not the same everywhere. Space or distance can appear to contract and time can appear to slow down as a function of velocity. If I; ghost, was traveling as the speed of light, which mass cannot do, the universe would appear to shrink to a point, and my time; clock would appear to be stopped, relative to the earth.

In the speed of light reference, the universe would appear to come and go in an instant. For God to see the 15 billion year old universe progress in a day in his reference, he would have to be close to a speed of light reference. Plug in the numbers into the special relativity equations and solve for t.

In physics, there is a thought experiment called the twin paradox, where two twins start on the earth. One twin leaves in a rocket, approaching the speed of light. When he returns, he hardly ages, but his brother who stayed on the earth is now an old man. There are two different rates at which time propagated, with the moving twin seeing earth time pass like time lapse photography, and his brother getting older very fast. The moving twin sees his clock running very slow so he hardly ages. If God was the moving twin, the universe would seem to age; evolve, quickly, but he does not age. Many years can pass on earth, but to him only seconds have passed.

Genesis and Science can agree if we use the twin paradox and special relativity, with God on the moving reference that starts at the speed of light. This reference slows gradually from the speed, of toward the earth reference time, until God become man; Jesus, where both reference are the same.

You do no have to accept that, but it can be supported with well established science and math using a hypothetical example for academic purpose. God, by definition, can do such things. Time dilation is part of the universe, such as in the center of the primordial atom of the BB.

When the universe started to expand there is no earth day, only highly time dilated BB days. Science is wrong by using earth days; 15 billion years since it ignores initial extreme time dilation, which if included, would lower the days based on only references that did exist, instead of pretend earth years that ignore relativity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then disappears a few days later.

Riding off into the sunset on their unicorn.

 

[Heyo]

Are you familiar with Einstein's theory of special relativity. The way we see space and time, is reference dependent. Space and time is not the same everywhere. Space or distance can appear to contract and time can appear to slow down as a function of velocity. If I; ghost, was traveling as the speed of light, which mass cannot do, the universe would appear to shrink to a point, and my time; clock would appear to be stopped, relative to the earth.

In the speed of light reference, the universe would appear to come and go in an instant. For God to see the 15 billion year old universe progress in a day in his reference, he would have to be close to a speed of light reference. Plug in the numbers into the special relativity equations and solve for t.

In physics, there is a thought experiment called the twin paradox, where two twins start on the earth. One twin leaves in a rocket, approaching the speed of light. When he returns, he hardly ages, but his brother who stayed on the earth is now an old man. There are two different rates at which time propagated, with the moving twin seeing earth time pass like time lapse photography, and his brother getting older very fast. The moving twin sees his clock running very slow so he hardly ages. If God was the moving twin, the universe would seem to age; evolve, quickly, but he does not age. Many years can pass on earth, but to him only seconds have passed.

Genesis and Science can agree if we use the twin paradox and special relativity, with God on the moving reference that starts at the speed of light. This reference slows gradually from the speed, of toward the earth reference time, until God become man; Jesus, where both reference are the same.

You do no have to accept that, but it can be supported with well established science and math using a hypothetical example for academic purpose. God, by definition, can do such things. Time dilation is part of the universe, such as in the center of the primordial atom of the BB.

When the universe started to expand there is no earth day, only highly time dilated BB days. Science is wrong by using earth days; 15 billion years since it ignores initial extreme time dilation, which if included, would lower the days based on only references that did exist, instead of pretend earth years that ignore relativity.

So, if I understand you correctly, god moved at the speed of light at the Big Bang and decelerated constantly until he reached earth at a velocity of 0 in the year 1 AD on earth. I.e. when the earth was formed, 4,543 billion years ago, god was at a speed of about 30% light, and 1 billion light years away from earth?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they never seem to want to have a discussion, no matter how much noise that they make to that effect. They are merely here to preach.

If they do give the appearance, it is to ask frivolous questions, ignore the answers and then ask them again and again and again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you familiar with Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Yes. Are you?

The way we see space and time, is reference dependent. Space and time is not the same everywhere. Space or distance can appear to contract and time can appear to slow down as a function of velocity. If I; ghost, was traveling as the speed of light, which mass cannot do, the universe would appear to shrink to a point, and my time; clock would appear to be stopped, relative to the earth.

In the speed of light reference, the universe would appear to come and go in an instant. For God to see the 15 billion year old universe progress in a day in his reference, he would have to be close to a speed of light reference. Plug in the numbers into the special relativity equations and solve for t.

In physics, there is a thought experiment called the twin paradox, where two twins start on the earth. One twin leaves in a rocket, approaching the speed of light. When he returns, he hardly ages, but his brother who stayed on the earth is now an old man. There are two different rates at which time propagated, with the moving twin seeing earth time pass like time lapse photography, and his brother getting older very fast. The moving twin sees his clock running very slow so he hardly ages. If God was the moving twin, the universe would seem to age; evolve, quickly, but he does not age. Many years can pass on earth, but to him only seconds have passed.

Genesis and Science can agree if we use the twin paradox and special relativity, with God on the moving reference that starts at the speed of light. This reference slows gradually from the speed, of toward the earth reference time, until God become man; Jesus, where both reference are the same.

You do no have to accept that, but it can be supported with well established science and math using a hypothetical example for academic purpose. God, by definition, can do such things. Time dilation is part of the universe, such as in the center of the primordial atom of the BB.

When the universe started to expand there is no earth day, only highly time dilated BB days. Science is wrong by using earth days; 15 billion years since it ignores initial extreme time dilation, which if included, would lower the days based on only references that did exist, instead of pretend earth years that ignore relativity.

First, that's quite a hilarious take on relativity.
Second, so this word salad is nothing but an ad hoc nonsense idea to desperately try to rationalize belief in ancient myths ...

 

[wellwisher]

So, if I understand you correctly, god moved at the speed of light at the Big Bang and decelerated constantly until he reached earth at a velocity of 0 in the year 1 AD on earth. I.e. when the earth was formed, 4,543 billion years ago, god was at a speed of about 30% light, and 1 billion light years away from earth?

If God was slowing from the speed of the light the point universe would then appear to expand from the original singularity, as though the BB was occurring. Just as space-time appears to be expanding today, as God reached earth reference, he would see the same expansion rate as we do. I not sure how far away God would be.

If this was an alien space craft that was traveling at the speed of light out universe would appear to contract to a point, making it easy to go anywhere in the universe is zero time. The problem is when you slow back down to go home, like in the twin paradox the earth may be long gone; age so much. You would still be young.

Yes. Are you?


First, that's quite a hilarious take on relativity.
Second, so this word salad is nothing but an ad hoc nonsense idea to desperately try to rationalize belief in ancient myths ...

This is called applied science, where you apply laws of science to physical problems, like how can we use accepted science to explain the time discrepancy of Genesis compared toCosmology. One answer is relativity and time dilation; reference affects. Only solid science can have such applications. Evolution as is, is not easy to apply. In the lab we get human selection due to the experiments and too much black box stuff. The theory needs an overhaul but the conceptual foundation is good. If you apply a water analysis it has better shot at being applied.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is his nonscientific beliefs that are getting him in trouble.

I about could not believe it all whwn he claimed Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant were atheists.
He definitely needs to stick to biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you saying you have a biology degree?

Oh well, I see from @Little Nipper's reply that it's going to be a conundrum. Have a good one, y'all!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I about could not believe it all whwn he claimed Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant were atheists.
He definitely needs to stick to biology.

I would not know either way. That is the sort of error that would have slipped by me if I had noticed it.

Perhaps he just needs to go back to school.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh well, I see from @Little Nipper's reply that it's going to be a conundrum. Have a good one, y'all!

Probably not. He has not posted here since he got his rear end handed to him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

would not know either way. That is the sort of error that would have slipped by me if I had noticed it.

Kant is a one of the top philosophers for theism. That's just his reputation.
Paine, in the Age of Reason (a book that harshly beats Christianity with acidic criticism) complains that Christianity is good for producing fanatics amd atheists, atheists who live their life as though the almighty doesn't exist (he was a deeply committed Deist and that was meant as a criticism).

Perhaps he just needs to go back to school.

He should just stick to biology. He's brilliant in that field, but when I read him I got the feeling learning other things in other fields aren't much of a priority to him. He even did a crap job at criticizing Christianity and produced among the lesser literature in that field.

 

[F1fan]

If God was slowing from the speed of the light the point universe would then appear to expand from the original singularity, as though the BB was occurring. Just as space-time appears to be expanding today, as God reached earth reference, he would see the same expansion rate as we do. I not sure how far away God would be.

So this is a God that occupies a small observation point of your choice
and isn't in all places observing simultaneously?

If this was an alien space craft that was traveling at the speed of light out universe would appear to contract to a point, making it easy to go anywhere in the universe is zero time. The problem is when you slow back down to go home, like in the twin paradox the earth may be long gone; age so much. You would still be young.

Is this why Jesus hasn't returned yet, he's lost in space?

This is called applied science, where you apply laws of science to physical problems, like how can we use accepted science to explain the time discrepancy of Genesis compared toCosmology. One answer is relativity and time dilation; reference affects. Only solid science can have such applications. Evolution as is, is not easy to apply. In the lab we get human selection due to the experiments and too much black box stuff. The theory needs an overhaul but the conceptual foundation is good. If you apply a water analysis it has better shot at being applied.

There is no use applying science to myths.

 

[Heyo]

If God was slowing from the speed of the light the point universe would then appear to expand from the original singularity, as though the BB was occurring. Just as space-time appears to be expanding today, as God reached earth reference, he would see the same expansion rate as we do. I not sure how far away God would be.

Details. What I was getting at, do we agree, that according to your scenario, god was nowhere near Earth during it's first 4.543 billion years and therefore had no hand in forming it, creating life of messing with evolution?