Where is the human race headed?

A giant black hole?

 

Are you a physics student?

Don't be stupid and bring quantum physics into this, NOTHING is compatible with quantum mechanics, not even time. The quantum world is a whole other dimension, gravity doesn't even apply. Of course, I must remember that I'm dealing with a religious person here.

Cause of gravity = mass. There is no two ways about it.

 

you believe the world was created in 6 days and is only 6000 years old. Thats literal fundamentalism.

You've alluded to thinking that evolution means we evolved from some species that has nothing to do with us (I think walsh was actually correct in saying that you think we evolved from monkeys. I'm pretty sure you did throw that argument out there). That means you don't understand evolution.

I rest my case.

Peace, y'all.

 

I been a student of physics all my life. As a youth, Einstein was a hero of mine.

Disregard quantum mechanics? Yeah, and just what are to replace it with? And as for gravity not applying in quantum mechanics those who deal with quantum mechanics seem to disagree with you, so it appears you are the one who seems to be stupid.

As for, remembering that you are dealing with a religious person, all you need to remember is that this religious person seems to know a whole lot more about gravity than you do.

Didn't Einstein say; "God doesn't play dice with the universe"? A religious person?

Actually the formula is "Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2)

where G= gravitational constant (6.67*10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2)
m1 and m2 = the masses object 1 and object 2 respectively
d=the distance (in meters) between the two objects", and even then this only a formula to determine the force of gravity and not to show what gravity is.

Perhaps if you could show this poor ignorant "religious person" your source that shows that gravity and mass are the same thing or that gravity = mass is a fact but if you expect me to believe it just because you said so, I have to tell you that I have my doubts.

 

I'd like you to explain how mass does not cause gravity.

I didn't say gravity = mass, I said the cause of gravity = mass.

Just disregard it, don't replace it with anything. We're talking about the real world and real forces, not theoretical dimensions beyond our empirical senses.

We're not talking about what gravity is, we're talking about what causes it. You said we don't know what causes gravity but we obviously do: mass.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept, since Einstein was a hero of yours.

 

How about some sources? Like I said, at this point all we have is your word for it.

It has not been proven that mass causes gravity, only as I said; there appears to be a correlation between gravity and mass but there is nothing that shows that mass causes gravity. That is why physicists are still looking for things like gravitons. If they knew that "mass causes gravity" why do they bother?

 

If you believe that we evolved from a primordial soup, and that grandpa was a monkey or other animal, that is also fundamentalism.

So, what's your point ? To insult me ? Why say this, it is pointless.



Explain evolution to me. The books say that we have a common ancestor with apes. That means we evolved from them. I know what they teach. So, let's get on the same page. What is evolution and how did we get here ?

You don't have a case. Explain you theory on how we got here, and what evolution is.

Build your case.

I'll build mine. Read on...


One of the biggest lies in the text books began back in 1830 when they developed the Geologic Column. They started to tell everybody that each of the layer of rock you see is a different age.

Cretaceous
Jurassic
Triassic
Premain
Carboniferous
Sulrian
Ordovician
Cambrain

All this was invented out of the clear blue sky, most of the names come from England (Cretaceous was chalk layers over in Cristisha and Devonshire for example). This geological column does not exist anywhere on Earth but in the text books.

Each layer was given a round number in age. Charles Darwin did not like these round numbers so he said the Wealden deposits in England were 306,662,400 years old. How he got that number I don't know. How can he have been sure of this number anyhow ?

All over the world there are petrified trees standing up, connecting in different rock layers. 27 layers of forests at Specimen Ridge Yellowstone, Wy, have broken off roots and are extended trough the layers. They did not grow there. Here we have been teaching kids that the layers are millions of years old and yet the tress remain in the vertical position. It's not common sense to say the layers are different ages when you have a tree connecting them all (the many layers of strata).

Science works when somebody has a theory and they hold against available evidence. The evidence shows the rock layers are not millions years old. This has been known for centuries.

The evolution theory is biased on this geological column being millions of years old. It is not. The column does not exist.

-Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniforminatrian Column.

Even though this column does not exist, it changed peoples world view in the 1800s. People began to doubt the creation story because that was commonly taught then. They began to believe the Earth is millions of years old.

This teaching effected a young theology professor who just graduated Bible school. His name was Charles Darwin. He graduated to become a pastor in a church in England. Darwin brought the bible and Charles Lyell's book Principles of Geology on his 5 year voyage. That is the book that destroyed his faith. Changed his life forever. Darwin later said,

At the Galapagos Islands he noticed 14 varieties of Finches. He looked at them and thought they all had a common ancestor. He's right (it's a bird).

During wet years the beaks get thinner and during dry years the beaks get thicker....by 1/10 of one millimeter in average beak thickness (from wet years to dry years).

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is your evidence for the earth forming 4-6 Billion years ago...this is Darwins so called genius.

Darwin then wrote in his book after studying at the Galapagos and other places around the world, "It's a truly wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other"

-Origin of Species p 170

And that proves birds are related to bananas. Just because you see 14 kinds of birds it does not mean birds and bananas are related. Charlie observed mirco evolution. But really we should just call it variation. Calling it "Mirco" gives it the free rider effect.

This is observable, it is scientific and it is backed by scripture. Micro, or variation is plain fact and it happens.

The question is, does variation, or 'micro' evolution go any further than this ? You may get a big dog or little dog, but you will always get a dog. Every single time. It could be very well that the dog, the wolf and the coyote had a common ancestor...nobody argues this. Even though they are three totally separate species.

The bible got it right on variation (micro evolution)

"...the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind...the living creature after its kind..." Genesis 1 Meaning they can bring forth. The dog and wolf can bring forth. Produce offspring. A dog and banana can't.


Let's define Evolution again. It has several meanings and ONLY ONE is scientific.

1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time space and matter. Big Bang. Before you can have a coherent theory of Evolution you need to establish how time, space and matter came about. It's a continuum, you can't have one without the other. Can't have space without time etc...

God did it best, creating time, space and matter.

" In the beginning God created the heaven and Earth" Genesis 1

Evolutionist believe this just happened. They have the exact same problems creationist have. Both are religious.

2. Chemical Evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. I've never seen or heard a evolutionist discuss this one or address the topic. They say the Big Bang created Hydrogen and some Helium, well then how did we get all the other elements ?

Do you want me to believe Uranium evolved from hydrogen ? They say oh yeah, that was from fusion in stars! But you can not fuse past iron. Even if you could, you got a serious chicken and egg problem: What came first, the stars to make the elements ? Or the elements to make the stars ? Chemical evolution is not observed, it is purely theoretical.

It's a religion.

3. Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever observed a star forming. There is no scientific or physical evidence on how stars can form...it is not observed. But evolutionist have to have it happen. There are enough stars out there for each person on earth to own 11 trillion each. Also stars and planets cannot from from gas clouds, yet this is taught.

4. Organic evolution - Origin of life from non living material. Evolutionist believe in spontaneous life generated from non living material. How did this happen ? You can believe anything you want to believe but I want to see scientific evidence. There is none. At all.

5. Macro evolution -Changing from one kind of animal into another. No body has ever seen that happen. No one will.

6. Micro evolution - this happens though it should be just called variation. The previous 5 are all religious and are implied evidence for the other 5. If you want to believe them, that's fine. I don' care what you believe, but do not call it SCIENCE! And do not make me pay to have this taught to the next generation of kids like that is science because it is not.


The text books are constantly changing the meaning of the word Evolution. Some say: Evolution, change over time. Saying living things change over time. What happened to the first 4 stages of evolution ? Are we going to assume these happen ? They don't have a coherent theory.

Then they say Evolution can be defined as a change in species over time. Yes, species can have lots of variations but this is not really evolution. It's a lie, they want you to believe all 6 parts of the theory of evolution are true by only giving you evidence from number 6 (micro/variation).

People say, can't Micro evolution really be just Macro over long periods of time ? No. Most evolutionist will tell you that macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over longer periods of time. This is dreaming!

" The central question at the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underling micro-evolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution...the answer can be given as a clear no"

Rodger Lewin "Evolution Theory Under Fire"

Let's talk about variation or micro evolution:

1. Variation certainly happens, but variation is limited. Farmers have been trying to get bigger pigs for long periods of time, but they will never get a pig the size of Texas. Cock roaches become resistant to pesticides, but never will become resistant to a sledge hammer.


Walsh, this is for you: Don't bacteria become resistant to drugs ? To advance their view, evolutionist have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given: mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ killing drugs). And so, the argument goes "if mutations can make bacteria stronger they must be able to do the same for other creatures." Dr. Spetner points out that this is biased on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause resistance to antibiotics still involve information loss.

For example, to destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attachés to the part of the bacterial called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacteria is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still constitutes as a loss in genetic information, not a gain. NO evolution has taken place; the bacteria are not "STRONGER". In fact, under normal conditions with no antibiotic present they are weaker than their non mutated cousins.

-From Case Against Darwin Ch. 2

That is not a process that is going to turn a rock into a person over millions of years.


2. They (creatures) produce the same kind of animal or plant. This is not evolution

3. The information for the variation was always present. The information in the gene pool is never added to. Dogs do not become pink and learn to fly.

4. The gene pool of the new variety is more limited than before and less able to adapt to future changes. Chihuahuas cannot produce Great Danes. Breeders select pre existing information.

5. So, genetic information was lost not added

6. Real evolution would require an increase in genetic complexity and not just a shift in gene frequency. How long would a Chihuahua last in the real world ?

Richard Dawkins was asked the question "Can you think of an example of a mutation that increases genetic complexity"

He was totally silent for 19 seconds, then answered, "Shut the tape off please" Because he even knew there aren't any.

There are no mutations that increase genetic complexity. You might shuffle genes around but you are never adding new genetic material.

Some text books will call it DIVERGENT Evolution. They give it a fancy name, but still a dog will never evolve into a whale or corn will never grow to produce tomato buds. Fancy names do not change the facts.

In a 100 years of selective breeding the Kentucky Derby finish times went from 127 seconds to 123. Millions and millions of dollars spent on this selection of traits suited for racing speed. I don't know if they reached the limit of horse speed or not, but I suspect they are reaching the limit. IF you really want to win the derby, why don't you breed wings on your horse and fly around the track in 12 seconds ?

Sure variations happen but there are limits. Why can evolutionist not see this ? Because there is an agenda (NWO). They want to believe that there is enough variety that a rock can turn into a human after millions of years.


The only evidence to support evolution is known lies. I'm sick of it.

Suppose I had a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. It's a dumb theory but I don't care. Then suppose I said NASA proved it when they went there on a secret mission in 1973 and drilled a hole and found that the moon is made of green cheese. Now we have a problem. I have a dumb theory that the moon is made of cheese, which is fine, but I have created LIES to support my theory. That's not fine. It's worse to get paid by tax dollars to preach this lie.

You have evidence for evolution I want to see it, I really do. NO evidence ? I'm sorry, get a new theory. It works this way with everything but not for evolution, why ? It's the only way they can get rid of God.


More lies in the text books...


They say they have evidence from fossils. This is silly. No fossils could even count for evolution. No fossils count. They would not even hold up in a court of law. You can't prove bones had any kids. And you sure can't prove they had different kids. If you want to believe these bones are our ancestors, go ahead...now your off to religion and not science.

Some people have a hard time letting it go, and will lie to you .


This is for you MEILA

The text books will use fruit flies as examples for evolution. They put those flies in microwaves, they x-rayed them and did a lot of this kind of stuff to them in labortories...and those flies mutated. They got flies with curled wings, they could not go anywhere. From this they also got a fly with no wings...those crawled. And yet, fruit flies have yet become anything but fruit flies under anything YET devised (like microwaving).

Conclusions from the fly experiments:

1. all mutations observed were inferior to the original fly.

But they also concluded that fruit flies have evolved as far they can go. There is another conclusion: maybe fruit flies were doing fine until you got a hold of them in your laboratory.

God made them right to begin with. Is this something you can even consider as an option ?


The text books say: Learn to think critically. Asking, "do you think humans are still evolving?" What kind of question is this ? It's like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" If I answer yes, I'm admitted to doing it, same as no. That question has a built in assumption. That is not a fair question or is it critical thinking.

That is a Soviet style indoctrination type question.

Evolutionist also teach that animals with similar bone structures must have a common ancestor because they are alike. Why can't it be that we have a common designer ? Just because an alligator has homologous bone structure similar to some bones in the human body does not mean anything of evolution, nor proves it. Yet they teach it that way and say grandpa may be an alligator.


Conclusions from comparative anatomy:

1. Many animals have similar forlimb structure.

2. They say then, they must have a common ancestor.

3. All this helps prove we came from a rock.

Darwin considered ^ this to be the strongest single class of evidence for his theory. It is now called the biometric law.

The gills that babies have in the womb actually go on to develop into the ear and other observed anatomy. IT has nothing to do with breathing or evolving away from our common ancestor the fish or whale. This all stems from drawings an embryonic professor taught and drew after reading Darwin's book. In 1875 the drawings were proven false and still, 125+ years later they were still being used to support evolution. The professor was Heackle. Some may recall that name.

A lot of people like the theory of evolution because it gets rid of God. But it is taught on lies. IF you got evidence show it to me, don't lie to me.


Here is a word from the National Center for Science Education:

If you have evidence for evolution I want to see it, I really do. NO evidence ? I'm sorry, get a new theory. It works this way with everything but not for evolution, why ? It's the only way they can get rid of God.

 

I don't believe that. You keep throwing that monkey argument out there. that is NOT what evolution is. You're inventing your own definition of evolution so that you can laugh about how stupid it is. If you're going to disprove something, you kind of have to disprove the actual theory and not what you think the theory is or what you want it to be.

I was responding to something you said, actually. Thats why I said it.

I already have. Its simple. Small adaptations over a short span of time equal big changes over a long span of time. That is evolution. I already used the example of the fruit fly experiement, in which two populations of fruit flies can adapt to the point where they are no longer able to mate with each other. That is evolution. Right there, in one small experiment. Proven.

It means we both evolved from a common ancestor.

I can really only repeat myself so many times, brother man.

See: Fruit Fly experiment. I haven't studied evolution in depth. I haven't been indoctrinated by a University's agenda. I did one small, simple experiment in 9th grade biology, observed adaptaton and evolution, and drew my own conclusions.

I respect your religious beliefs man, but you can't disregard science because of your beliefs. That is a very dangerous thing to do. Just ask Copernicus, Gallileo, Giordano Bruno, etc.

 

I can tell you have not studied evolution in depth.

 

I don't disregard sicnce, Just lies and fairy tales. You have no clue what evolution is.

The evolution you belive in only exist in your mind.

LOL

 

come on dude. You believe hook line and sinker in a book that was written not just by one man, but dozens of men over the course of a few hundred years and edited and translated several times since its completion......and you're going to condescend to me and tell me I believe in fairy tales?

Keep things respectful and if you can't do that, at the very least don't be a hypocrite.

 

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/forbidden-archaeology-human-devolution

Quite interesting.

 

I don't need to. Evolution is simple to me. I'm not interested enough to study it in depth when it makes sense on a base level.

What does it matter anyways. No one really knows. Its all conjecture on some level. Humans don't know shit. Even the humans that wrote your Bible.

 

It's what I believe Everyone is being taught this attitude you share, so I am not offended. It's learned in the wake of Evolution.

You assume you know the bible translations. I suggest finding out for yourself. The king James is God's word preserved.

God could inspire an atheist tomorrow to write the bible and he would get it 100% correct.

See the burden is not on me. We don't teach creation in schools with tax paying dollars. Evolutionist do. It's on them.

I really believe the biblical authors were inspired by God. The bible has never been proven scenically inaccurate or wrong about ANYTHING>



Thanks for your pm.

 

"There is nothing that shows mass causes gravity" Yeah, ok, except our fucking planet and every other planet in the fucking universe. And all the stars. They are looking for gravitons and things like that because they are searching for HOW mass produces gravity, since it obviously causes gravitational effects...

Are you fucking kidding me? You say you're a physics student and you won't accept that mass causes gravity? Where the fuck does it come from, then, and why does gravity not exist where there is no mass? This correlation you speak of is SO ABSOLUTE as to leave no doubt what causes gravity. The force of gravity IS PROPORTIONAL to an object's mass!!!!! There is no other cases where gravity occurs other than where MASS is involved. So please STFU.

Jesus fucking Christ, discussion over, unless you can demonstrate to me how mass does not cause gravity or something else that causes it... If there is such a thing.

 

Except that you can't make a man out of some dust. And you can't make a woman out of a man's rib. And you can't gain knowledge from eating fruit. And you couldn't have brought down the walls of Jericho by marching around them. And the flood in the old testament didn't cover the world.

Come on, everyone, please chip in the anything that science has proven wrong in the bible!

 

How do you know the capabilities of God ? Really, how can you know ? Because a science book did not say that ?

The flood DESTROYED THE WORLD and covered the entire world.

Brother, there is so much evidence for the flood. I will cover this soon.


Mustlivelife, have you ever seen The Empire city, ring of power ?

 

Yeah, there have been a few mass floods, usually after ice ages.

 

*flinches as the psycho suddenly lunges and shouts in his face*

Lol, honestly... How do you know the capabilities of God? Really, how can you know? Because a religious book said that? How can anyone know what he did and how?

There is evidence for a flood around that time but not one that covered the world.

 

You can't give birth unless you are impregnated by natural or artificial means.