Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Well actually the existence of God isn't relevant at all to a thread on evolution in case you didn't know.

 

If you are Okiefreak then sign on under your own nick and we may debate.
If you are not Okiefreak then I will have to put you on my ignore list, since one Baron Munchausen is enough for me to deal with.

 

You must have had some formal schooling because reading and writing are a form of communication that you must learn. We can help you learn the language we spoke before we thought we had learned how to lie.

 

Right on crouton.

 

OK, so how does God's existence fit into this thread? Especially when this thread is supposed to dispute evolution, not dispute creationism.

Btw you know some strange phrases. I had to search Urban Dictionary to find the meaning of that one.

 

What I know for sure is that if anyone claims Santa Claus exists and also doubts tall tale of Munchausen (whereby latter allegedly traveled to Moon on cannonball), well, just because someone who doubts such a tall tale also believed in existence of Santa Claus, that alone doesn't in any way validate in my eyes Munchausen's original claim that he indeed traveled to the Moon on cannonball nor makes me any less doubtful of possibility of such a feat, particlularly if someone who claims to believe in Santa Claus clearly demonstrates how Munchausen's claim is in contradiction of laws of physics and anything we know of gravity, momentum, survival in open space and so on.

 

Ah, but would someone who doesnt believe that Munchausen got to the Moon on a cannon actually believe a bearded old man somehow flies on magical flying reindeer around the world in the space of a few seconds.... both seem equally unplausable.

 

Well, I can't attest to that.

However, evidently there are those who don't believe Darwin's theory about random chance and natural selection, while at the same time they believe in Supernatural being or Intelligence to be responsible for Creation.

Both are equally invalid from Scientific point of view claims and neither one validates the other by virtue of itself being in error in it's own Positive Assertion/Claim.

 

I come under that bracket. I am fairly inclined to say I really don't know how the universe and it's inhabitants began but religious feeling tells me I was created in the beginning of time. Something feels warmer, more compassionate in the thought of being shaped and sculpted out of nothing by a Father than of a course of random mutations and events which eventually became me and you. It feels like life has more meaning to me believing in Creation than in the belief in Evolution.
However we came about, I'm glad that we turned out to be capable of philosophy and deep thought, and to question our origins...

 

You have full rights to whatever wishful fantasy you chose to believe.
If it makes you happy so much better for you.
Who am I to tell you "believe this wishful thought or don't believe that wishful fantasy!"

But if you come and tell me that your wishful fantasy is nothing less of a Scientific Theory and that I either must believe it or else I am an idiot, well, that's where we have a disagreement and I say "If you say it's a Scientifically Valid Theory then go ahead and Prove It!"

 

Ah, but have I said that? I don't think less of anyone who doesn't believe in Creation, much less accuse them of idiocy. It's for them to decide what to believe in. There are some brilliantly smart Evolutionists and some very unintelligent Creationists, and vice versa. What theory you wish to believe in doesn't make a difference on your level of intelligence in my humble opinion, so I would not tell someone that if they don't believe they are idiotic.
But I ask for the same courtesy in response, which looking at this thread alone, is a courtesy I don't see many people giving.

 

No, you didn't. But Darwinists do.

Of course, who is disputing that?

I won't dispute that there are some very unintelligent Creationists.

However, Darwinist by definition can not be brilliantly smart.
That's like saying "there are some brilliantly smart people who believe Munchausen has flown to the Moon on cannonball".

Well, again, Munchausen could have written a paper saying how it's possible to fly to the Moon on cannonball.
He could have titled it "On Possibility of flying to Moon on the cannonball"
He could have called it a Scientific Theory.
If anyone wished to belive it to be so, that would be everyone's individual choice, of course.
As to level of intelligence necessary to belive it was indeed a Scientific Theory, well...

Very good. (Note that I never said you were Darwinist or that you said such a thing).

Did I ever show any lack of courtesy for you?

 

I found this intresting...

Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.


More...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=sciencespecial2

 

But fundamental premise never changed, rudenoodle.
All discoveries are so far being shoehorned into Darwin's original theory.
When evidence contradicts they just fraudulently doctor it to fit it in.

Ptolemaic model, as long as you hold on to basic premise that Earth is center of Universe and everything rotates around it, is still a Ptolemaic model, no matter how many Hubble telescopes you use, as long as you doctor in the pictures to keep insisting that the original model is basically right.

 

You didn't read the article did you?

 

No, didn't read it yet.

I'll take a look at it now.

 

Good article! My sentiments exactly! "Darwinism" is propaganda.

 

Suppose someone on Hip Forums posted a comment such as "That guy is a real Einstein!" Then somebody else replied: "Einstein was a dummy, and people who believe in him are just superstitious religious fools. And you have the burden of disproving that, since you made an assertion implying he was smart." After some prodding to come up with evidence of Einstein's stupidity, the second poster provides a set of equations copied from a men's room stall in Perkins, Oklahoma, with the heading: "Einstein's theories of general and special relativity are shattered". After much further probing, the second poster comes up with the following:

A critique of Einstein. By Fred Hutchison.
www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/050128 -

"January 28, 2005
A critique of Einstein


By Fred Hutchison

"Discover Magazine had a special Einstein issue for September 2004. Fifty-eight pages of glossy magazine space was devoted to Einstein! Einstein seems to be growing as an American cult hero. He is not only a dominating figure in the sciences but he has a profound influence on the culture. His theory of relativity sends the message that all things are relative in the cosmos, with the strong implication that the realms of morality, truth and culture are relative. I dissent. I disagree that morality, truth and culture are purely relative. And I deny that the physical world is what Einstein says it is.

Who Am I to Question Einstein?

I claim to be able to criticize Einstein on grounds that do not require an advanced degree in physics. My grounds for criticism are: a) Einstein's theories were based on false presuppositions drawn from Enlightenment philosophy about the nature of the cosmos. b) Einstein said that he does not trust a scientific theory which cannot be reduced to a simple elegant picture which a child can understand. Einstein himself started with such child-pictures and developed them through mathematics on the black board. The whole of his work consisted of imaginative mind exercises in his office. He left the empirical testing to others as a "mopping up." If I can show that Einstein's child-figures are self-contradictory, then the theories based upon those concepts must be false. c) Einstein uses plug figures to make the numbers balance. In short, Einstein cheats. d) The empirical proofs of Einstein's theories do not constitute a discovery of "laws of nature," as many people assume. Even scientists sometimes fall into this trap. The empirical proofs only establish that Einstein's mathematics are practically useful for a limited range of applications. The are useless for problems which are above or below the "radar range" of these applications. e) Einstein's ability to predict physical nature in a spotty way, does indeed demonstrate the existence of orderly laws of nature we can count on, but does not demonstrate that he knows what those laws are. He has only found a technique to impersonate those laws in order to calculate predictable outcomes. A convincing impersonator of a celebrity might not have any clue to the inner psychology behind the quavery voice, blinking eyes, and nervous tic which he mimics. Einstein's ability to mimic the measurable phenomenon of nature (the exterior of nature) gives us no reason to believe that he understood the realities which lie behind the phenomena (the interior of nature.).

Parallel Lives

In 1929, Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings." Albert Einstein-Scientist, edited by Paul Schilipp, 1970. Source of Quote, New York Times 4/25/29. As we explore the outlines of Spinoza's philosophy, we find remarkable parallels to Einstein's cosmology. Even the lives of the two men have interesting parallels.

Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza (1632 – 1677) was born of Sephardic Jews who emigrated from Portugal to Holland because of the religious and intellectual tolerance of Holland. Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) was born of Ashkenazi Jews living in Germany. Einstein emigrated to Zurich Switzerland to escape the authoritarian and regimented ways of Germany. Spinoza earned a living as a lense grinder as he developed his famous philosophy. (Some historians argue that Spinoza ground lenses for experiments in optics, and lived off an inheritance.) Einstein worked in the Swiss patent office while he developed his famous theories of physics. The young Spinoza was excommunicated by his synagogue because of his vague Deism involving an impersonal God and other heretical ideas. Einstein lost interest in Judaism and organized religion but retained a vague Deism involving an impersonal God. Spinoza was influenced by the French Philosopher Descartes and became a rationalist. Spinoza accepted Descartes mechanist view of nature but rejected Descartes dualism and his transcendent God. Einstein became a rationalist after the example of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant. Spinoza developed a theory out of a fine tissue of logic that the cosmos is a closed deterministic system of cause and effect. Every idea and every object in this imaginary world is interrelated and interlocking. Everything is one. This "one" is the impersonal "god." Every particular thing is a "mode" emanating from god. Spinoza's god was a complex, eccentric intellectual version of pantheism. Einstein adopted Spinoza's god, and Spinoza's cosmos. Just as Spinoza created a world out of a tissue of logic, Einstein created a world out of a tissue of mathematics. Both men were determinists and therefore both denied the existence in free will. Both men were rationalists and accepted reason, even though reason cannot exist in a deterministic system.

A False World View

If reason and free will exist, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If a spiritual realm exists outside of a closed system of cause and effect, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is personal and transcendent then Einstein's cosmos is false. If God is the creator and differs in quality from the creation, then Einstein's cosmos is false. If there is a discrete separation between elements of the creation (heaven-earth, light-dark, land-sea, species after their own kind, man/creature, man as an individual) then Einstein's cosmos is false.

Einstein claimed he was inspired by the beauty and harmony of the cosmos. But a picture of everything melting into every other thing is the epitome of ugliness and disorder, as we learn from surrealist artists such as Salvador Dali. A regimented closed system is the barrenness of a prison. Order, yes. Beauty, no.

Did Einstein build all his theories on the presuppositions of Spinoza's pantheism? Yes. When he said, "God does not throw dice with the universe," he was referring to the seeming disorder of Quantum Mechanics which deals with the realm of atoms and molecules. If there are nooks and crannies in the cosmos where things can happen which are incongruent with other parts of the cosmos, then the cosmos cannot be an interlocking closed system. Einstein rejected this out of hand, not because of evidence or logic but because of his faith in Spinoza's pantheistic cosmos. The second half of Einstein's career was wasted with the futile search for a "Unified Field Theory," which would reconcile Quatum Mechanics with his Theory of Relativity. The motive of his quest was to vindicate his vision of the cosmos. He did not pause to consider whether that vision was wrong or whether the facts led away from the direction he was going.

The Theory of Relativity and other theories of Einstein always have one thing melting into another thing. Matter and energy are the same thing. (Remember Spinoza's notion that everything is one.) Matter can melt into energy and energy can be precipitated as matter. Time and space are also relative. A mass of matter warps the space-time continuum which causes gravity. Time is relative to speed. Time slows down in a rocket as it approaches the speed of light. All of these ideas were conceived in Einstein's youth and all emerged out of Spinoza's pantheism — a fantasy of a young excommunicated Jewish heretic who dreamed up a pantheistic prison system and called it god. It is a monstrosity which we now call science, thanks to the mind experiments of the young Einstein, who is now a cult hero.

Contradictions About Moving Objects

Einstein said that movement is relative. If one is on a train pulling out of a train station, the train is moving relative to the station and station moving is relative to the train. However, when Einstein tried to prove that movement and time are relative, he ignored his dictum about the relativity of the movement of two objects. Einstein proposed that if one twin brother took off in a spaceship flying near the speed of light and if the ship returned fifty years later, the twin which stayed on earth would be old and the twin in the spaceship would still be young. But this is nonsense. The twin on the earth was moving away from the twin on the ship at nearly the speed of light. Why would not the twin on the ship get old and the twin on the earth stay young? Scientists call this the twin paradox.

Some scientists think they resolve the twin paradox by noting that the rocket twin reversed course, first flying away from the earth and then flying towards earth. Since the rocket twin did not travel with constant relative velocity, the two viewpoints are not the same. Hence, the rocket twin can age slower than the earth twin. But this is nonsense. Just as both the twins moved away from each other at nearly the speed of light, both changed course relative to the other. The twin on the rocket ship changed course in relation to the twin on earth and the twin on earth changed course in relation to the twin in the rocket ship. Notice how Einstein's relativity principles do not work unless you apply them selectively.

Mistakes Concerning Gravity

Einstein claims that gravity is not the attraction of two bodies containing mass as Newton said. Einstein claims that gravity is caused by a warp in the time — space continuum. For example, if a beam of light passes earth within the zone of warping, the beam will bend. During an total eclipse of the sun in 1919, Einstein predicted that when the sun peeked out from behind the moon, the first rays of light could be observed from a point on the globe which would lie beyond the horizon if the sun's rays are straight. Einstein predicted that the rays would bend when they passed near the earth so that they could be seen over the horizon. Not only did the light rays curve, but they curved nearly the amount Einstein predicted. This proof made Einstein famous.

But wait a minute! Einstein said that light sometimes behaves as a wave and sometimes as a particle. If light behaves as a particle, why could not the sunlight bend when it passes through earth's atmosphere, like light refracting as it passes through water or through a lens?

Both Einstein and Newton had a model for predicting the revolution of moons around a planet and planets around the sun. But Einstein's calculations are more accurate for calculating the orbits of space stations or the movement of spaceships through the solar system. For NASA, Einstein rules. However, Newton is more practical and makes more sense when it is applied to the human scale, to falling bodies and flying baseballs. Einstein's theory of gravity cannot explain why a falling bodies near to the earth fall straight downwards.

Einstein's gravity has an oblique effect on moving bodies. A space ship flying near a planet will enter the "warp in the space-time continuum" surrounding the planet. The pilot will think he is maintaining a fixed course, but his movement relative to the planet will curve. If the ship does not change course and enters a rotation which spirals towards the planet, his movement will resemble a whirlpool. The standard illustration of Einstein's illustrates a whirlpool effect, not a falling body. Imagine a gigantic mattress with a heavy weight placed in the center which warps the center down a few inches. A rolling pool ball on the surface of the mattress will curve towards the mattress in a whirlpool trajectory. Water going down the drain forms a whirlpool. Why? Because water molecules are attracted to one another and moves in fluid sheets. Water is just like Einstein's universe: everything is connected and everything moves in sheets, vortexes, and whirlpools. Indeed, our galaxy looks like one big whirlpool. Great minds like da Vinci, Descartes, and Einstein were obsessed with whirlpools and vortexes. Da Vinci, Descartes, Spinoza and Einstein were obsessed with the behavior of light. Descartes thought that the whole cosmos moved in vortexes in clockwork fashion. Like Einstein who lived two and a half centuries later, Descartes thought that planetary rotation were vortexes.

So what is my problem? Gravity on earth has nothing to do with vortexes, whirlpools, or warps in the space-time continuum. A dropped baseball falls straight down. If their were a deep enough hole in the ground, it would fall to the center of the earth. It would steadily accelerate (if there was a vacuum in the hole) until it reached the center. After it passed the center, it would lose velocity because it would be pulled back to the center. This is a simple straight line attraction between two objects. It has nothing to do with a warp in the space time continuum which works obliquely upon moving objects in space.

Einstein's gravity has no effect on the atomic level, and a negligible, if any effect on a baseball because other nearby forces overwhelm it. A baseball on the ground or flying through air is bound up with the elements of earth and is not free to move in spirals like objects in space. A baseball is attracted straight down towards the earth with Newton's gravity, not with Einstein's gravity. Different principles are at work at the atomic level, the human scale, and in outer space. The creation is not an integrated system neatly packaged as the tidy minded Einstein supposed. His cosmological pantheism is false.

Einstein Cheats!

The "cosmological constant," is a term Einstein coined in his theory of general relativity. The constant represents the theoretical possibility of density associated with empty space. Einstein's numbers indicated that the force of gravity would cause the cosmos to collapse. Since the cosmos is not collapsing there must be a balancing force. Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant" to supply that countervailing force. As a CPA, I would say that this is the equivalent of supplying a plug figure to make the books balance. Einstein's mathematics did not work. He made up a number to make his equations balance and called it the cosmological cosmos. Einstein cheats! But he got away with it because of his great prestige. "Einstein's mathematics could not be wrong. There must be something we are missing in the cosmos to vindicate his numbers."

Years later, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the cosmos is not in equilibrium but the galaxies are moving away from us, Einstein said that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his career. Yes, cheating is a "mistake."

Modern cosmologists are still cheating. They cannot understand why the universe is not flying apart. The mathematics does not work for big-bang theory, a theory built upon foundations laid by Einstein. The mathematics cannot be wrong, of course. There must be "dark matter" out there which we cannot detect. Hmmm. Our calculations indicate that 90% of the cosmos is dark matter. (Some calculations put it at 99%.) Most of the equation is a giant plug figure. 90% cheating and 10% mathematics based upon real data.

Some scientists claim that they can infer the presence of dark matter by observing gravitational forces (Einstein's vortexes) in space. I do not know enough about their math and the data it is based upon to say if this is true. However, I do know that scientists never empirically verified the existence of "density" which Einstein assumed must be in space to support his cosmological constant. I also assume that the computations of the imaginary dark matter must be going poorly because scientists are talking about bringing back the cosmological constant. "Dark matter is not enough. There must be more stuff out there. We need another plug figure. Hey remember Einstein's quaint old idea of the cosmologic constant...." Sounds like the cosmologists are floundering.

May I offer a suggestion? Maybe there is something wrong conceptually with Einstein's theory of gravity when you extend it to galaxies. It does not work at the atomic or the human scale. It does work with spacecraft and planets. It does not work with galaxies. It is a niche theory, not a unified theory.

One more suggestion. Get out your supercomputers and do more mathematical work on the forces within vortexes. Misunderstanding the dynamics of a vortex is the sort of thing that can throw the mathematics off by a factor of ten or one hundred.

Final Comments

I have shown that Einstein is a niche scientist whose math only works within a limited range. Therefore, we should use Einstein when he is useful, but not regard him as our teacher about the nature of the physical world. This satisfies point d) under the heading Who Am I to Question Einstein?"
******************************


So now, all you benighted worshipers of Einstein, you must prove the article wrong, point by point, or forever be branded as the superstitious fools and Muchausen lookalikes you are. Go to it! (I'm such a genius!!!!)

 

Okie, have you ever read about Zeno's paradox of motion?

 

Geniuses have no need to read much (as long as they don't have the burden of proof; which they never do. That's why they're geniuses), but I'm aware of the paradoxes. Which one did you have in mind?