"God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

"God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:08 am

https://donotlink.it/nNL2

Anybody who reads this can use these sources to debunk it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 221300256X
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... /specht_05
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-birds-bee ... alize.html
https://geniussschmenius.wordpress.com/ ... n-hawking/
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/c ... ab6f4a5475
https://biology.stackexchange.com/quest ... pider-webs
https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/04 ... l-compass/
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/hoist-on ... nt-page-2/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District
https://emperorpenguinsproject.weebly.c ... ution.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_flytrap#Evolution
https://quailandaardvark.wordpress.com/ ... bridget-b/
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-new ... rium-47144
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/ ... PcU6EUpBTs
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
https://prezi.com/m/lzndrcr_qr9e/evolut ... gler-fish/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti ... Early_eyes
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/i ... iller-Urey
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/y ... 2beaed322b
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... OD4xbU2nov
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... origin.php
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_debates_Ken_Ham



If anyone is willing to debunk this chapter by chapter, they are welcome to do so.
Last edited by ryu289 on Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:04 am

Let's look at p.82-84 for something that really annous me.
Here is a quote from the book that sums up the authors beliefs:
The disciples of Chuckie Darwin now “require” us to believe that the Spontaneous
Soviet Soup of Comrades Oparin and Urey blindly wrote a recipe for amino acids,
and a separate recipe for making proteins from the amino acids, and a separate
recipe for combining the proteins with other essential elements, and finally, an
actual book with perfect grammar, no typos, and built in duplication and
modification capabilities - all after the Great Rolex Watch that is the Universe was
formed by Blind Big Bangs and “coalescing” matter that came from nowhere!
Ok, first of all, DNA being a language is a metaphor, you don't take it this literly! https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsret ... -computer/
https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress ... ot-a-code/
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... h-text.php

Second these morons aren't aware of current science.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... origin.php
Well put! You see folks, thanks to the discoverers of DNA, we now know that
even Darwin’s single cell “Universal Common Ancestor” was not the “simple”
creature which had been imagined after all. It’s more like a computer micro-chip.
Even single cell amoebas have complex DNA code. For some unknown reason, an
amoeba cell actually contains more DNA codes than a single human cell!
Really? We know the first common ascestor wasn't this.
Are we to believe this complex
language was written, amended and rewritten - millions of times- by blind forces?
Can an explosion in a print shop yield a perfect copy of the U.S. Constitution;
followed by subsequent writing explosions for each of the 10 Amendments (Bill of
Rights) which then followed?
This isnt the same as the english language! http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:29 am

From p. 42
In spite of the international hype, the two Frankensteins did not create a life form,
nor did they create an actual protein. The amino acids which they engineered were
only the building blocks of protein; which in turn are only one of the four building
blocks of living cells, along with carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids. This is
like saying, “We figured out how to make some bricks, sort of. Therefore, we now
know how the skyscraper came about, by chance.”
Not so fast my soupy scammers. Tell us how the blueprint for the skyscraper came
to be, and how the foundation was laid, and how the elaborate matrix of steel
beams and trusses was manufactured and secured into place, and how the concrete
floors were made, and how the elevators were installed, and how the bricks were
held together, and the bolts, rivets and welding, and how the glass windows were
set into place, and how the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical
wiring were installed – all by blind random chance.
What am I missing here gentlemen?
It’s actually worse than that because we really do not even have that simple “brick”
until the amino acids spontaneously combine to form an actual protein. You see,
the amino acid is not an actual structure. It’s just a building block
They weren't seeting out to prove what you think. http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evo ... bility.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/i ... iller-Urey

They were only looking to prove the first step and nothing more! (If i am wrong on this pls let me know)

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:52 am

From Chapter 11:

This may, or may not, account for Huxley’s odd obsession with passionately promoting a theory that had no evidence behind it, other than the minor variations in finch beaks. For his fanatical promotion of Evolution, the blustering biologist became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog

Why would a scientific truth need a “bulldog” to promote and defend it anyway? As the Philosopher St. Augustine once observed, “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.' (9) After a century and a half of searching for millions of magical missing links, Darwinism still requires a whole pack of “bulldogs” to defend it.
Tell me, why do you nedd to defend Christanity if it's true?
Also Darwin had much more evidence: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... -evolution

Oh and chapter 11 has this error: http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/marx-capital/

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19375
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:01 am

Train wreck is a good description.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:22 am

From pg. 151-152
He explains that if He does not come away impressed with man’s condition, He
will obliterate the Planet into a trillion pieces and start from scratch. So, dear
reader, it’s up to you to serve as humanity’s advocate, and Mr. G’s tour guide. The
fate of humanity rests in your hands. You had better not screw this up!
Now, you must approach this little exercise with no preconceptions in mind. Forget
about what various religious and cultural traditions have said about God. Forget
your own opinions and prejudices. Just pretend you know nothing about any of the
world’s religions and nothing about what Mr. G’s own tastes and opinions are. All
that you know for sure is that He is who He says He is; nothing else. Remember
now, this isn’t about your opinions; it’s about you persuading Mr. G to spare the
rest of us.
On Day 1 of your Divine Odyssey, Mr. G asks to be introduced to the world’s
greatest men of Science and Invention, past or present. If He deems them to be up
to his intellectual standards, He will spare the world for another day. At a café
down the block, Messrs. Archimedes, Newton, Roentgen, Edison, Tesla and von
Braun are enjoying a lively discussion of classical science; everything from
buoyancy to gravity to electricity to astronomy to X-Rays to light bulbs to the
commercial uses of electricity.
Meanwhile, at a park up the block, Theoretical Scientists Darwin, Oparin,
Hawking, Dawkins and Nye are conducting a mathematical circle-jerk over
Evolution, Soup-ism, Big Bang-ism, and time warps. Where would you take Mr.
G? Be honest now!
On Day 2, Mr. G asks you to take him to an Art Museum. If He deems the
assembled works to be up to His Divine standards of beauty, He will spare the
world for yet another day. Would you take Him to the Louvre Museum in Paris
and the Hermitage in Russia? Or would you guide Him through New York’s
Museum of Modern Art, where the imbecilic “in crowd” stares in amazement at
twisted pieces of metal and random paint blotches spilled on canvas? Be honest!
On Day 3, Mr. G asks to meet a healthy family. Do you go ‘Norman Rockwell’
traditional; hard working dad, stay at home mom, 3 kids, dog, home with a white
picket fence? (Something very hard to find in today’s Marxist-Progressive Era of
heavy taxes, debt based currency and ceaseless inflation) Or do you go “modern
family”; two homosexuals sharing an apartment with a divorced lesbian friend and
two adopted children; one of them “transgendered”? Be honest!
On Day 4, Mr. G wants to attend a concert. You might go Classical (Andrea
Bocelli, Mozart), smooth Jazz (Kenny G), or even take a chance with Rhythm &
Blues (Luther Van Dross.) But you know damn well you wouldn’t take Him to see
Beyonce the Glorified Pole Dancer breathlessly rap-panting about her all night sex
sessions with her one-time drug-dealer husband, ‘Jay Z’. (Drunk in Love).
So no rock and roll, progressive rock, or rock opera? How about Deviantart? How about the fact gay people are harmless: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/new- ... parenting/
How about all the evidence above you ignore because it's "theoretical science"
I would ask this being if art is about beauty only, or if it can be used to make statements about the human condition? http://artistmyth.com/the-beauty-myth/
Your questions are all loaded with false dilemmas. But lets go on to the next pages...

On Day 5, Mr. G asks to see the local medical facilities at work. You might take
him to the Emergency Room to see medical heroes in action, or perhaps a local eye
doctor, ear doctor or dentist. But you sure wouldn’t take Him to an abortion clinic
to see sentient 3-9 month old fetuses being dismantled and discarded. Would you?
On Day 6, Mr. G asks to meet with the great rulers and statesmen of the world,
past or present. You might introduce Him to Solon, Pericles, Cicero, Marcus
Aurelius, Charlemagne, Bismarck, and George Washington. But would you really
want to show off the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush, Dick Cheney, John
McCain, Tony Blair, Obongo or Hillary Clinton to Him?
On Day 7, Mr. G wants to take in a movie. Do you opt for Gone With the Wind, or
would you take Him to the latest degenerate, violent, borderline pornographic filth
churned out by Marxist Hollywood? Fifty Shades of Grey, Mr. G? I think not!
On Day 8, Mr. G wants to see how humanity pays homage to Him. You might
bring him to an Eastern Orthodox Church to witness the solemn ceremonial
splendor of its mass; or perhaps to a Mosque full of humbled men on prayer-mats;
or to a Baptist Church for some good ole fire & brimstone admonitions to avoid
evil. But it is highly doubtful that you would want Him to witness some fast-
talking, multi-millionaire, book-selling, jet-setting TV preacher in a $3000 suit
spewing empty ‘feel good’, motivational fluff.
I would show him the greatest superhero movies, Blade Runner, multiple Disney Animated features,

I would show him the evidence for the holocaust and how Hitler was a Christain: holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
I would show him how multiple religions protect sex abusers and ask if this is what he wanted.
https://www.guernicamag.com/when-we-let ... get-raped/
https://www.apnews.com/2953774dff6e40668121a7e4589daaa9
I would remind him of all the nude drawings christanity made over the years and ask why they aren't 'degenerate' or offensive.
I would show him abortion in the bible, https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/2560 ... ion-rights
Or how Christain charities steal children from intact families: https://newrepublic.com/article/127311/ ... n-movement
Oh wait, perhaps I shouldn't, after all, he could destroy the world...

So what do you have to say about your strawman laden questions thst can only be answered if we follow your assumptions and ignore other possibilities
You know which choices you would make. And I know that you know which
options you would select. But exactly how did you know which options would save
the Earth from the righteous wrath of Mr. G?
It’s simple. You just followed, out of necessity, your God given HNS (Human
Navigational System). It’s one part “gut instinct” and one part “conscience”; the
universal human conscience which expresses itself in the unique cultural forms of
the world’s various religions. This is what the snooty, snarky, snobby, intolerant,
spiritually illiterate dogmatic Atheist can never understand
Again I am making choices you never give. Only a close minded bigot thinks art equals beauty, or that there cannot be any other options.
I am giving an honest answer, while you belive a gut feeling aligns with your preconcieved notions of what a deity wants.

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:58 am

From pg 132.
Not one of those bones mentioned in Johnson’s little ditty, in addition to the
hundreds of others which he missed, can function without any other of the others
already in place. The system had to have come together all at once. That’s the
“integrated complexity” which so moved the philosopher Anthony Flew to
convert from Atheism to Deism. If the components of the skeletal system
“evolved”, then how could separate entities “know” in advance that they would
eventually fit in with other complex parts?
Indeed, as that anonymous student once asked our Professor Melski, “Which
“evolved” first? The eye-ball or the eye-socket? We can do an entire album of
songs relating to the subject of complex interrelated parts working together. Sing it
with me!
Dem veins, dem veins, dem dry veins, dem arteries, dem arteries, dem dry arteries,
dem ligaments, dem ligaments, dem dry ligaments, dem muscles, dem muscles,
dem dry muscles, dem organs, dem organs, dem dry organs, dem DNA codes, dem
DNA codes, dem dry DNA codes.
All this assumes that these forms were predetermined...and ignores why irreducible complexity fails: https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... -debunked/
All the parts can be modified to suit a different purpose, not to mention evolution doesn't have an end goal!

Also as for eyes, many species manage to survive with significantly less-advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates. Judging by this, the eye evolved first
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-first ... rie-Devine
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... _0/eyes_06

P. 117-118
In 2012, the aforementioned Dr. Benjamin Carson got a taste of that good ole
“tolerance”. Carson had been invited to deliver the commencement address at
Emory University. Prior to the speech, nearly 500 professors, student and alumni
signed a “letter of concern”, expressing dismay over Carson’s rejection of
Darwinian Evolution. The letter itself was full of the same old tired Logical
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases we have reviewed in Chapter 3. (Author’s
comments in bold parenthesis):
“Dr. Carson argues that there is no evidence for evolution, that there are no
transitional fossils that provide evidence for the evolution of humans from a
common ancestor with other apes (not just apes - also maggots, trees, ants etc)
….that evolution is a wholly random process, and that life is too complex to have
originated by the natural process of evolution. (Yes. DNA code is too complex to
randomly pop up)
….All of these claims are incorrect. (Says who?/ Case Closed Trick)
….The evidence for evolution is overwhelming: (Evidence is Overwhelming Trick)
…ape-human transitional fossils are discovered at an ever increasing rate, (extinct
ape species, at best. What about amoeba to man? Marilyn & the Maggot? Got
any proof of that?)
….and the processes by which organisms evolve new and more complex body plans
are now known to be caused by relatively simple alterations of the expression of
small numbers of developmental genes (only “now known” through the magic of
‘Theoretical Biology’)
…..The theory of Evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity. (Case
Closed Fallacy / The Theory of Gravity does not require ‘Theoretical Physics’ to
prove itself. Go jump off of your Ivory Tower and see what I mean).
……Dismissing evolution disregards the importance of science and critical
thinking to society. (Red Herring, Ad hominem) (3) (emphasis added)
Ok first off, evolution isn't "ameoba to man" or "marilyn from maggot" this is flawed thinking referencing "the great chain of being"

Second if you are curious how we can have the same common ancesor, zsk why life fits so well into nested hirearchies involving physology, dna, ect: https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2014 ... n-descent/
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/dna.php
Only descent with modification can make such patterns.
Second you seem to focus on fossil gaps...https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... ossils.php

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by landrew » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:34 am

Someone ask a creationist: "Do you really think God would be pleased that you chose to use the brain you were given to believe in such codswallop?"
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23860
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:14 am

I "engage" my SoBap relatives on the family forum, but they don't like it much.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:57 pm

From pg 136
Were the Supreme Designer Himself to assume the shape of a 1,000 foot tall
winged giant, fly down to Earth, angrily rip open the roof of the Atheist’s home,
pluck the stubborn fool out of his bed, and fly him about the Universe while
revealing the secrets of the great unknown - our scholarly Darwinist Big Banger
would look at his Maker and finally reply: “What a marvelous specimen of high
human evolution you are. You must return with me to the University so that my
colleagues can see what we will all look like a billion years from now.”
I wouldn't condsider a fly god anymore than a spaghetti man. How do you prove you are god? Or not an alien showing the wonders of the universe?
P.134
Examples of unimaginably precise fine-tuning include the ratios between carbon to
oxygen; hydrogen to oxygen (H2O / water), the size of the electric charge of the
electron; strength of nuclear forces, amounts of radiation, strength of gravitational
forces, the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron, and the distance of
Earth from the Sun, just to name a few. Every calculation had to be “just right”.
Change any of those numbers by just the tiniest, and I do mean tiniest of fractions
and there is no viable Universe, and certainly no human life!

And yet, Messrs. Hawking, Dawkins and others refuse to even entertain the
possibility that Intelligent fine-tuning is at work in the Universe, opting to instead
search for (concoct) new and even ‘insaner’ theories of “The Multiverse” and “Of
Everything” to explain away this “inconvenient” reality. Mad scientists indeed!
But why? God wouldn't need to fine tune anything, it's god! And how do you know other forms of life wouldn't have evolved?
P.133
There is the Honey Bee, a tireless builder, flower pollinator and craftsman with a
division of labor production system that would make Henry Ford proud. No bees =
no flowers. No flowers = no bees. There goes that “integrated complexity” thing
again; an inexplicable Darwinian “difficulty” that has converted many an Atheist.
There is the male Peacock, who flashes his stunning artistic plumage, worthy of
any art museum, in order to attract a female. Oh the lengths guys will go to just to
impress a woman!
There are the various millipedes, some with as many as 750 little legs with
microscopic feet that march in sync without ever tripping each other up.

And on and on and on the list of awe-inspiring life forms goes. These creative
DNA code-driven miracles and I do mean miracles, did not and could not have
blindly originated, evolved and regenerated out of Darwin’s Daydream or Comrade
Oparin’s Soviet Soup. What’s more, as even St. Stephen Gould of “Punctuated
Equilibrium” fame admitted, the fossil record does indeed appear to reveal sudden
outbreaks of life forms. Yet the hard core Atheist, his finger wagging in your face
while foaming at the mouth, will continue to proclaim, “Intelligent Design is
nonsense! Evolution is a fact! Science! Science! Science!” Talk about a “god-
complex”!
You claim god created things like a milipieds legs or peacock's plumage, but why? How do you know that evolution couldn't have done any of it? You just assume god because you consider it impossible.
https://www.livescience.com/5066-peacoc ... tails.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /evo.13446
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Chilopoda

Also you misquote Gould: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pe.html

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:29 pm

Here he mocks so called "theoretical science"
Now don’t be intimidated by the title of this chapter. Even your humble author
will, without the slightest degree of hesitation or sense of insecurity, readily bow to
the superior mathematical prowess of the High Priests of Atheistic Big Bang-ism
& Evolution. But the turf upon which we must fight this epic battle for truth is the
fair field of Logic, not the muddied soil of complex mathematics. (Fallacy of
Complexity & Verbosity / Chapter 3)
As opposed to Classical Science (Applied Science) which relies upon
experimentation and observation to probe and understand known phenomena,
Theoretical Science employs assumptions, abstractions and mathematical models
to explain possibilities or outcomes.
Classical Science is based upon hard facts which tell us what is actually
happening. Theoretical Science, at best, tells us what might have happened in
the past, or might happen in the future, if the underlying and unproven
assumptions are correct.
Though it has certain deductive uses I suppose, if not applied responsibly, the
various Theoretical Sciences can become the magical mathematical tool of
psychological rationalization, instead of objective science. (Circular Reasoning /
Observer Expectancy (See Chapter 3)
What good are poetic, jaw-dropping, structurally sound math equations and
computer models if the underlying assumptions are based on logical fallacies,
conjecture, or inaccurate assumptions arrived at by biased inference?
Imagine a “Theoretical Criminologist”, without any hard evidence, concocting a
case which falsely points to you as having committed a murder 15 years ago. With
the aid of math and computer models, he then recreates a hypothetical scene-of-
the-crime, and “proves” how you might have done the crime and with this or that
weapon, and this or that motive, with this or that accomplice. He presents his
“findings” to a “Theoretical Prosecutor”, who then argues the case before 12
“Theoretical Jurors”; challenging you and your defense attorney to prove the
theory wrong! (Negative Proof Fallacy)
I feel this is a massive strawman. They use what is observable right now and creste models to better predict how these phenonominom act in the future, which leads to more predictions, data, and so on.

On pg. 27
As difficult as it is to prove a negative, Tesla set out to refute the sacrosanct
Theory of Relativity. Tesla:
“During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough
to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity,
which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It
explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its
influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false
conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a
tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial
bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-
contradictory.
On the next page:
After his death, Tesla’s work on the subject was never found.
Oh so the dog ate his homework? https://zombiesymmetry.com/2014/05/16/n ... -an-idiot/

http://edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked.html

https://earlyradiohistory.us/tesla.htm

Not surprised that Tesla was a fraud.

On pg. 28
Einstein himself even admitted that his Theory of Relativity could not be proven
(and he also admitted that Tesla was the greatest scientist in the world). St. Albert
summed up the essence of Theoretical Physics/Science with this very telling quote
about his famous theory:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can
prove me wrong.” (10)
See how the game works? Theoretical Scientists hatch an idea based on
assumptions, and then concoct a “dazzling” mathematical model to explain how it
might be possible, and then challenge their peers to disprove the theory (Negative
Proof Fallacy / Chapter 3).
“Theoretically”, a skilled mathematician could “prove” that elephants once flew by
calculating how many hundreds of FPS (flaps per second) the massive beast would
have had to flap his ears in order to achieve lift. He could also factor in the effects
of varying atmospheric conditions, weight reduction and a partial hollowing-out of
the elephants bone structure. Now that would certainly make for an awe-inspiring
and entertaining set of math equations; but guess what? Elephants never flew!
Sigh. https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-falsify ... relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html

Imassume that the math was made the same way Newton developed his formulas

Pg. 29
Like giddy little teen age girls losing their minds over the latest shoe fashion or
cute pop star, a number of other excitable Theoretical Scientists will swallow up
the hot new theory without critical analysis. (Innovation Fallacy / Sound & Fury
Syndrome, Bandwagon Effect, Chapter 3)
Teen Age Girls: “Oh Frankie! Oh Elvis! Oh The Beatles! Oh Van Halen! Oh the
Back Street Boys! Oh Justin Bieber!”
Theoretical Scientists: “Oh Evolution! Oh Relativity! Oh Big Bang! Oh Punctuated
Equilibrium! Oh Chaos Theory! Oh Global Warming!”
Notice how he is doing the same with Tesla, but wont admit it
As for the non-scientific types who intuitively doubt “the science”, they are
dismissed as “uneducated people who do not understand the underlying Math and
Science”. (Ad Hominem) With this reality in mind, let us understand and never
forget this critical point.
The Theoretical Physics (dazzling math) supporting Big Bang-ism & Big
Blend-ism; and the Theoretical Biology, Geology & Chemistry supporting
Darwinism, all proceed from starting points which already assume the
respective theories to be true, and the existence of an Intelligent Designer to
be false. (Circular Reasoning)
Oh? Then why is there observable evidence then?

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:39 pm

Pg. 32
Eric J Lerner of Lawrence Plasma Physics is just one of many scientists
trying to fight Big Bang-ism
And failing at it: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html


Pg.. 32-34
Next, there is no satisfactory explanation given for where all of this pre-Big Bang
matter originated from. How did it form into such a dense point? I mean, we’re
talking some seriously massive amounts of matter here, all condensed in one point.
You can’t just ignore the pre-Big Bang period, can you?
And yet, that is exactly what the Big Bangists do. Instead of addressing these vital
questions, they simply choose to ignore the origin of the existing matter of the pre-
Big Bang period and the additional “can of worms” which it logically opens up. In
a lecture entitled “The Beginning of Time”, the legendary, and I mean legendary,
theoretical physicist, cosmologist and outspoken Atheist Stephen Hawking
explains:
“At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top
of itself. The density would have been infinite. …The universe will evolve from the
Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before.” (2)
OK Mr. Hawking. Whatever your crystal ball into the past tells you, I will accept
for argument’s sake (in spite of fact that many astronomers don’t subscribe to Big
Bang Theory). But please tell us about “before the Bang”. What was it like in your
estimation? Where did all of this bloody matter come from? How many billions of
years did it take for all that stuff to accumulate and condense to such a degree that
it could later fill up the current Universe?

A few lines later, the man dubbed by the press as “the smartest man in the world”
addresses these essential questions:
“Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may
as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events
before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could
measure what happened at them.” (3) (emphasis added)
Say what?!
Because Hawking, by his own admission, can neither “define” nor “measure” the
events prior to the Big Bang, he simply “cuts them out” of cosmic history. Who is
he to say that pre-Bang-ism events “have no observational consequences”? How
can he simultaneously acknowledge that there were “events before the Big Bang”,
and then say it doesn’t count as actual “time”. Who is he to unilaterally decree that
“time began at the Big Bang” when time is infinite and open ended?

Inquiring minds want to know; how was all of that matter created and how did it
accumulate into a single cosmic snowball? Wouldn’t the origin of the actual
matter, in whatever pre-Bang form it may have existed as, represent the true
“starting point” of the Universe?

Why is it that fragmented matter floating through space for “15 billion years” can
be defined as “the Universe”, but a condensed block of that very same matter
floating in that very same outer space for many years prior is not considered part of
cosmic history?
Because physics breaks down! Also time as we know it is not open ended and infinite. There is no such thing as an infinite! http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Look the big bang is the start of time and space as we know it currently existing. This includes physical laws. So yeah, how do we know they existed before hand.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... ml#bigbang

Pg 33-34
Atheist Hawking skates around a Law of Thermodynamics by simply ignoring it.
The law states: “Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.” This
means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and no new
matter or energy passing out of existence. The idea of the universe coming into
existence from nothing violates the first law of thermodynamics, which was
established by the very scientific community that now, for the most part, ignores it.
This law suggests that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have
had a supernatural origin which violated the law - a special moment in which
matter and energy were indeed created by an Intelligent Force far beyond our
understanding.
Or, could it be that matter and energy are actually eternal, and always there? Now
there’s a real mind bender!
Not according to the evidence. In fact it was extrapolating backwards from the universe's expansiin that gave us the idea of the big bang and what evidence such an event would leave.
Also: https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... odynamics/
In all fairness, we really can’t expect Hawking, or any other scientist, to ever
definitively answer such questions. But what Hawking is essentially saying is,
“Because such questions are unanswerable, let’s just edit them out of our Atheistic
belief system and proceed to the Big Bang of pre existing matter.” (author’s words,
not Hawking’s)
Imagine if this were a cooking class. Chef Hawking the infallible would dismiss
the creation, accumulation, mixing, and prep work of the actual ingredients as
“having no consequence” to the recipe. “Just place the pre cooked lasagna in the
oven and shut up”, says the Master Chef of all Chefs.
We do not: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/a ... 870d1b8f52

P. 35
In addition to the completely dodged question of matter
formation (creation), is the question of how the perfect,
mind boggling, Swiss watch-like harmony and symmetry
of the Universe could have come forth from a massive
explosion (or even just a blind and gradual expansion as
other cosmologists believe): an event that otherwise
always causes random chaos.

This portion of the post Big Bang Creation narrative can be referred to as ‘The Big
Blend”. The Big Blend would be somewhat analogous to placing different varieties
of metals and glass into a blender and pushing the “chop” button. Try this a few
trillion times and eventually, some of the scattered parts will have fastened
together to form a high end Rolex watch.
How do stars form on their own? We already know this and you expect that a gradual expansion can't cause this? https://www.universetoday.com/142420/as ... oung-star/
https://www.sciencealert.com/you-must-s ... own-galaxy

On p. 36
Granted, it’s an imperfect analogy because gravitational pull of various matter is
not taken into account, but you get the point. How could an explosion of
condensed matter have blindly created a cosmic Rolex of perfect orbits and solar
systems? (to say nothing of where the raw materials to make the Rolex came from
in the first place!)
Like you said, it was gravity. He shot himself in the foot!
Lets see the timeline:

Now he goes into ad homeim territory on pg. 37
One parting shot at St. Stephen Hawking. In researching the life of “the smartest
man alive”, your nosy author unearthed this juicy little Encyclopedia nugget about
the Hallucinatory Huckster:
“His (Hawking’s) unimpressive (and self admitted) study habits made sitting his
Finals a challenge. He decided to answer only theoretical physics questions
rather than those requiring factual knowledge. A first-class honors degree was a
condition of acceptance for his planned graduate study. Anxious, he slept poorly
the night before the examinations and the final result was on the borderline
between first- and second-class honors, making a viva (oral exam) necessary.” (5)
(emphasis added)
And …
“Hawking's first year as a doctoral student was difficult. ……he found that his
training in mathematics was inadequate for work in general relativity and
cosmology.”
So, “the smartest man alive” is mortal after all!
First off, he is quoting from Wikipedia! Second he ignores how Hawking latter hunkered down and applied himself:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

He was held in higher regard than he believed; as Berman commented, the examiners "were intelligent enough to realise they were talking to someone far cleverer than most of themselves".[66] After receiving a first-class BA (Hons.) degree in physics and completing a trip to Iran with a friend, he began his graduate work at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, in October 1962.[25][69][70

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11318
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by landrew » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:40 pm

Thanks for the headache,
just thinking about this.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:52 am

For the record, here are the two paragraphs of Hawking’s essay that the author butchered to strawman his argument:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Notice what he cut out? The fact that at the earliest point physics as we know it broke down?

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by ryu289 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:54 am

He also calls time “infinite and open ended” which is bs.
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physic ... w-of-time/

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by gorgeous » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:26 am

I would have been banned for that spam....biased much pyro?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28062
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:30 am

gorgeous wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:26 am
I would have been banned for that spam....biased much pyro?
More proof that you should be seeing a professional.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by gorgeous » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:34 am

aww...you missed me...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28062
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:38 am

gorgeous wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:34 am
aww...you missed me...
It's hard to miss explosive diarrhea.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by gorgeous » Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:43 am

yes...your words are similar right?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28062
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:10 am

gorgeous wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:43 am
yes...your my words are similar right?
Not similar. They are crap.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5580
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: "God v Darwin" a trainwreck of creationist thinking.

Post by Monster » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:48 am

gorgeous wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:26 am
I would have been banned for that spam....biased much pyro?
If you think you have a legitimate complaint, I recommend that you contact Pyrrho.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.