Cool🙂 this is just a sample of the "science" that you can find there:
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south. Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"
A1: The Ice Wall is really a mountain range. It just happens to be covered in ice and snow.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
Q: "What about tides?"
A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
Now I don't know if all that jazz is funny or horrifying;
Originally posted by black beetleQ: No way could the government possibly guard the entire Ice Wall! It would take too many men! Millions of men!
Cool🙂 this is just a sample of the "science" that you can find there:
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south. Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
Q: "How does gl ...[text shortened]... es or "tsunami".
Now I don't know if all that jazz is funny or horrifying;
A: Not really. You could do it with a few hundred and some basic equipment.
(the americans could learn a thing or two in keeping the mexicans away 😀)
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleOkay, I was under the impression you wanted to debate this when
Not at all! We could go on and on and on but I am not eager to rewrite here every piece of information about the known facts and evidence from the fields of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Geology and Paleoanthropology (for starters) just in order to "proove" the theory of the evolution, which today is the cornerstone of our civilisation. It's all pla ...[text shortened]... ..
Smithsonian Institution has also a thing or two to quote regarding the Human Evolution.
you asked to start this conversation. I really was interested in why
you felt evolution of the eye was such a fact, you never produced
anything that amounted to much to prove that point, the things you
did bring like variety, and and such were just statements of belief
on your part as near as I could tell.
As I pointed out to you before when you asked to debate, if I wanted
to debate C. David Kreger ,Ior anyone else, I'd go there, if I wanted to
read a book I would, and I have read books suggested by others here
too. You on the other hand suggested we debate the subject, and
your strongest points so far has been go read someone else's book.
I think we have gone as far as we are going to go, I'll let this drop.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonProvide some of the evidence, give your strongest 3 or 4 pieces of
[b] ….There is no room for those fossils to be the ancestors of
the modern apes and monkeys, and not be the ancestors of humans,
you just believe that so it must be true. To suggest otherwise to you is
purely out of bounds, but I have yet to see from you, why that is.…
“but I have yet to see from you, WHY that is.”? -I have already told ...[text shortened]... eliefs to back you up…[/b]
No. I have the mountain evidence of science behind those beliefs.[/b]
evdence so we can look at them. I'd like to know why it is that we
have both apes and humans today, and we call them different
speices, but when it comes to the past we think they are the same?
What is different about what we think is true in the past than today?
Why is it accepted that some pieces of evidence means we are related
and we are not just looking at another species, or just the ansetor of
one not the other?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBlind design, you making that up? Design requires a plan, a purpose,
[b] ….evolution is like water flowing down a hill it simply goes where the path takes it no forethought no design, no personal preference involved, . …
A peculiar analogy with water but; Correct.
…there isn’t any design in evolution whatsoever…
How do you draw that conclusion -unless you are only talking about “conscious design ...[text shortened]... if it didn’t, I don’t think it would even be a theory for the creation of the diversity of life.[/b]
if all you are talking about is a blind process there isn't any design
there, like I pointed out to you before water flowing down hill is not
a design if no one put effort into it it is just the laws of the universe
acting on several things causing them to occur. Are you suggesting
that the unverse has some grand design in place acting on everything
at once?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"That’s why there is such a thing as “scientific facts”. "
[b] ….Really, only one? You have a very narrow mind if you honestly believe
that, or you are just a true believer in the face of it all you can only
see it occurring one way. …
Sometimes it is possible to draw a conclusion from the evidence and be rational in also concluding that there is a vanishing small probability of that conclusion b ...[text shortened]... that one, why is that…[/b]
“why is that?” ? Why not? I don’t understand you argument here.[/b]
I have had people here jump all over me over saying that same exact
thing.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by timebombted[/b]Test 1:
Test 1:
Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design
Test 2:
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
Test 3:
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design ...[text shortened]... ny times before KJ, so why you bring up the "car" thing again and again I'll never know.
"Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design"
Reproduction is a test for design, why is that?
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedTest 2:
Test 1:
Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design
Test 2:
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
Test 3:
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design ...[text shortened]... ny times before KJ, so why you bring up the "car" thing again and again I'll never know.
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
So you take your do cars reproduce by themselves throw in a code
and talk about heritable and so on and I come back to the same
question as before, why does reproduction have anything to do with
there being design or not?
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedTest 3:
Test 1:
Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design
Test 2:
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
Test 3:
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design ...[text shortened]... ny times before KJ, so why you bring up the "car" thing again and again I'll never know.
Do the "parts" of a car show a natural affinity to each other? - No = design
You are making a strong case for cars not being human, but where are
your points touching on design?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI have already explained the evidence that we and other primates are closely related e.g. genetic analysis, similar anatomy etc. If you want to see that evidence then just look it up for yourself -I don't see why I should do so for you. I have already explained why it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume that, given the evidence that we are related, that we and apes do not share a common ancestor. Do you just want to repeat myself over and over again?
Provide some of the evidence, give your strongest 3 or 4 pieces of
evdence so we can look at them. I'd like to know why it is that we
have both apes and humans today, and we call them different
speices, but when it comes to the past we think they are the same?
What is different about what we think is true in the past than today?
Why is it accepted that ...[text shortened]... d we are not just looking at another species, or just the ansetor of
one not the other?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…Design requires a plan, a purpose…
Blind design, you making that up? Design requires a plan, a purpose,
if all you are talking about is a blind process there isn't any design
there, like I pointed out to you before water flowing down hill is not
a design if no one put effort into it it is just the laws of the universe
acting on several things causing them to occur. Are you suggesting
that the unverse has some grand design in place acting on everything
at once?
Kelly
Not necessarily. Blind designs exist throughout nature. The geometric design of every snowflake is complex and unique due to the pseudo-random physical effects each snowflake was exposed to during its formation. These geometric designs do not appear to be totally random under a microscope because, although each one is different, they all have symmetry and other much more subtle features in common. Baring in mind that each one of these geometric designs is unique, exactly what is the “plan” or “purpose” behind each of these of these geometric designs?
…Are you suggesting that the unversed has some grand design GRANT DESIGN in place acting on everything at once?..… (my emphasis)
Firstly I don’t know what you mean by “GRANT DESIGN” and secondly I don’t know what you mean by a “design in place acting on everything at once” -unless what you mean by “GRANT DESIGN” is “the laws of physics”?
In any case, obviously when I talk about evolution, I am not saying nor implying anything about the universe as a whole -not even its “design” (whether that “design” is blind or not) when I am talking about the blind design that evolution produced. Obviously I don’t have any rational reason to believe that what produces the diversity of life has anything to do what so ever with what made the universe the way it is (if that is what you are really referring to?) and nor do have any rational reason to believe that the two things are “linked” -I am sure they are not. Obviously I don’t think one has any relevance to the other what so ever.
Originally posted by KellyJayAssume there is no designer / design for cars.
Test 1:
"Do cars have a process of to reproduce other cars? - No = design"
Reproduction is a test for design, why is that?
Kelly[/b]
For there to be more than 1 car they require a method of reproduction.
Without reproduction (self replication) it can imply they have been produced. This is just one line of evidence why cars are designed / created.
Originally posted by KellyJayWithout a heritable code / plan / instructions that is capable of "change" (mutation or recombination), we would see no variation from the first car i.e. all cars would be the same.
Test 2:
IF you can show cars are able to reproduce by themselves, Do they have a "code" which is heritable and recombines / mutates at each generation to produce variability? - No = design
So you take your do cars reproduce by themselves throw in a code
and talk about heritable and so on and I come back to the same
question as before, why does reproduction have anything to do with
there being design or not?
Kelly
Without a mechanism to create variation, implies that the variation we see today in cars is being manipulated = design