Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2018, 08:20:33 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 1171 »
1  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: Today at 12:12:51 AM

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


No, not bla bla,

''During a measurement, on the other hand, the change of the initial wave function into another, later wave function is not deterministic, it is unpredictable (i.e., random). A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[39][40]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Unless you think quantum mechanics is also a hoax, at this point all science will be!!

When you read the article, science theory is mentioned at least several times. It is the nature of science theory to be a best science found up to that time. So, we don't know that pure random exists.

The idea of "unpredictable" means that they haven't been able to predict something with the knowledge and equipment that they have.

The "random" mentioned above isn't clear enough to know whether or not it is pure random, or random as used 200 years ago.

Quantum Mechanics, by its nature, can be used to find whatever answer you are looking for, if you work at it hard enough. This means that if pure random was determined by QM, the opposite of it could be determined as well.

This puts us right back where we were were before... countless numbers of proven C&E, but not one proven instance of pure random. This means that evolution is questionable, at best - or it would be if it hadn't been prove impossible by a bunch of other science. Since evolution is touted as fact when it is not known to be factual...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
2  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? on: October 18, 2018, 11:59:44 PM

''Since the article says that the vaccine creates more polio than does nature, polio is increasing from the vaccine.'' Ok, where does it say this?

The article isn't that long. If you had read it, you would have the answer to your question - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio.

Cool

We had 350.000 cases of wild polio, we got to almost zero thanks to vaccines, a few children are paralyzed because of it, how are the vaccines creating more polio than nature if nature created 350.000?

But we don't know that. All we know is that vaccines exist and that the cases of polio went to zero (if they really did). Polio might have gone to zero a lot faster without the vaccines creating more polio. And the articles says that vaccines create more polio than nature. And, what about all the autism, etc., that the vaccines create as are shown by other studies?

Everything works in cycles. So, nature creates polio more at some times than at other times. As I said in a previous post:
The only thing your point shows is,
somebody was smart enough to notice the natural drop in polio cases,
and that the natural drop was faster than the polio vaccine made new cases of polio,
and they capitalized on the idea.

Cool
3  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 18, 2018, 11:51:01 PM

''Because that's all we know about outside the universe... not two outside-the-universes'' Do you realize how stupid this is? So the universe is just one, therefore inside the universe only 1 thing can exist? How come we have trillions of planets then?

What do you think outside the universe actually means? I don't think you really know, do you? Science doesn't even know if such thing exists but there are some theories, some of them even state that multiple universes exist so how can you claim it's only 1 god that created this universe and not multiple?

Standard Astargath attempted deception. We know nothing about outside-the-universe. We know a lot about the universe (though only a fraction of things that are within). Did you get that? We know one thing about outside-the-universe. What is that one thing? That it is outside the universe. We don't know if it is complex or simple. We don't know if it has anything that we can understand or not. What we do know is one thing... outside-the-universe... one. That is, unlike within-the-universe, which we know there are many things, we don't know anything about without except that it is outside-the-universe, one thing.

You are right. Understanding what outside the universe really means is something people don't know. If they did, it would be part of the universe, like inside the universe. But, we know that the universe was made by something other than itself. Since it isn't in the universe, it is outside the universe.

When you get out there, count the things that are out there for us all... if you can even understand it. So far it is only one... outside the universe.

Cool

''We know one thing about outside-the-universe. What is that one thing? That it is outside the universe. '' We don't. We actually don't know if ''outside the universe'' exists or not.

''Understanding what outside the universe really means is something people don't know. If they did, it would be part of the universe'' Understanding what's outside the universe doesn't magically make it part of our universe.



Whatever made the universe isn't wasn't within the universe when it made the universe. So, it was outside the universe. So, outside the universe exists... although the way that it might exist doesn't necessarily fit the word "exist."

If we can understand it according to universe stuff, it is universe stuff.

Cool
4  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 18, 2018, 11:27:01 PM

''Because that's all we know about outside the universe... not two outside-the-universes'' Do you realize how stupid this is? So the universe is just one, therefore inside the universe only 1 thing can exist? How come we have trillions of planets then?

What do you think outside the universe actually means? I don't think you really know, do you? Science doesn't even know if such thing exists but there are some theories, some of them even state that multiple universes exist so how can you claim it's only 1 god that created this universe and not multiple?

Standard Astargath attempted deception. We know nothing about outside-the-universe. We know a lot about the universe (though only a fraction of things that are within). Did you get that? We know one thing about outside-the-universe. What is that one thing? That it is outside the universe. We don't know if it is complex or simple. We don't know if it has anything that we can understand or not. What we do know is one thing... outside-the-universe... one. That is, unlike within-the-universe, which we know there are many things, we don't know anything about without except that it is outside-the-universe, one thing.

You are right. Understanding what outside the universe really means is something people don't know. If they did, it would be part of the universe, like inside the universe. But, we know that the universe was made by something other than itself. Since it isn't in the universe, it is outside the universe.

When you get out there, count the things that are out there for us all... if you can even understand it. So far it is only one... outside the universe.

Cool
5  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: October 18, 2018, 11:17:21 PM

Science says it's random, you claim it's not, so you have to prove it.

Blah, blah, blah. Science says that they don't know that it is random.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
6  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? on: October 18, 2018, 11:16:07 PM

''Since the article says that the vaccine creates more polio than does nature, polio is increasing from the vaccine.'' Ok, where does it say this?

The article isn't that long. If you had read it, you would have the answer to your question - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio.

Cool
7  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? on: October 18, 2018, 08:05:12 PM

''We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right?'' No? We have the proof that polio vaccines almost eradicated polio and they have some terrible side effects that don't happen to often. The reason polio vaccines paralyze more children now than polio itself is because there is almost no polio, thanks to the VACCINES.

Your article cites: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio

"The fact is this [the live oral polio vaccine] is the only tool that we have that can eradicate the disease," says Zaffran.

That eradication effort has been incredibly successful. In 1988, when the campaign began, there were 350,000 cases of polio around the world each year compared with the six so far this year.

Zaffran credits the oral polio vaccine with getting the world incredibly close to wiping out a terrible disease.

"Four regions of the world have totally eradicated the disease with the use of the oral polio vaccine," he notes. "Of course we need to recognize that there have been a few cases of children paralyzed because of the vaccine virus, which is regrettable. But, you know, from a public health perspective, the benefits far outweigh the risk."


Your highlighted part above is double talk. Since the article says that the vaccine creates more polio than does nature, polio is increasing from the vaccine.

Consider this. If everybody who was vaccinated died, would the vaccine have destroyed polio? Yes, of course, at least until another natural case of polio showed up. So, if the vaccine isn't that dramatically bad, and even stopped way more polio than either it or nature started, what is the rest of the damage it did, by poisoning off polio? What else has it poisoned in the inoculated people besides the polio virus?

How much autism has been produced? How much of various other crippling disease have been produced? The particular report might not say all this. Maybe no studies have been done in this instance. But there are other studies that show that vaccination is producing more and worse diseases than it is conquering. The people are getting both happy results, and bad results.

At the very least, stop using the vaccines until they are shown to be safe all around.

Cool
8  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: October 18, 2018, 07:47:20 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

Cool

'' We simply don't know the cause(s).'' Prove it.

Do you mean that somebody actually knows the cause(s)? Prove it.

Cool
9  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Religion is a virus on: October 18, 2018, 07:45:42 PM
And organized science is one of the worst religion viruses.    Cool
10  Other / Off-topic / Re: Flat Earth on: October 18, 2018, 07:43:51 PM

+1 

And btw this "suchmoon" has wrong username. Correct would be suchMORON  Grin



+bonus pic



Einstein said it the other way in relativity theory. He said that gravity is the state of space that forces material occupying space, away from empty space, towards already occupied space. Repulsion, not attraction, even though it acts like attraction as far as we on earth are concerned.

Cool
11  Other / Off-topic / Re: Flat Earth on: October 18, 2018, 07:38:11 PM



First we need to agree on a couple of points:

1. Assuming a globe earth, the visible horizon line at an altitude of 33,000 feet is about 222.7 miles from from the observer. TRUE or FALSE?

2. Any point on the ground between the visible horizon line and the observer at 33,000 feet has a distance of less than 222.7 miles on a globe earth. TRUE or FALSE?



edit:

Here's one example:


Source: https://youtu.be/7CpAlOuZb2o

Assuming a globe earth, what are the visible horizon line distances from the observer at 1 billion miles?

Are they any more or less at 2 billion miles?

But that is what keeps your thread going... talking about stupid stuff rather than using things that prove the truth... globe earth.

Consider. Assuming globe earth as it is, the difference in diameter between the poles and the equator is about 26 miles. The 33,000 feet you mention is only 6.25 miles. You are playing with all kinds of stuff that doesn't even figure regarding the way you are using them, because you are using such tiny distances.

But it DOES increase your Activity rating. So, go on and dazzle people with your stupidly useless questions.

Cool
12  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 18, 2018, 07:21:51 PM

Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently.

What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe.

The only two ways that this can be different are:
1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe;
2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself.

Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics.

Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing.

Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this.

Cool

Uhmm ....... ok ....... badecker, are you ok? I know at this point you have to desperately try to say something but come on.

We don't know what's outside the universe, then how can you claim it was god who created the universe if god should be outside the universe? Does the outside of the universe only allow room for 1 god? This is not proving that the universe wasn't caused by multiple causes, your argument is still bad.

Thank you for maintaining the science aspect of this thread, rather than applying number 1 that I said above.

Please explain, further, what you mean. After all, I answered what your questions seem to be, in my post you quoted, above.

What's outside the universe? God is outside the universe. Why is God One? Because that's all we know about outside the universe... not two outside-the-universes, but only the one outside-the-universe.

Cool
13  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: October 18, 2018, 11:36:30 AM

Blah, blah, blah. Virtual particles and radioactive decay are NOT evidence, and certainly not proof, of pure random. And even if you said it 50 million times, that wouldn't make it evidence or proof of pure random.

However, even if pure random existed in some strange, as yet unknown way, cause and effect in everything we currently know shows that evolution is not possible as current evolution theory explains evolution. Since scientists are not stupid, they know this when they get right down to examining evolution theory. Some of them have even expressed it... like Stephen Gould, when he talks about the fact that there is so little real evidence for evolution that it should really not be classified as a science theory at all.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

They are evidence and they are considered random. Why should I listen to a random nutjob religious guy instead of well established science?

The only way that they might be considered random, is the same way that the dictionary explains simple random. We simply don't know the cause(s).

Say that you see a leaf on a tree twisting and turning in the sunlight with the breeze. We know the causes for the leaf turning, in general. It has to do with things like the heat from the sunlight, the breeze itself, and the way the whole tree is swaying. And there might even be other things that we understand as the cause, such as the rate of evaporation of water from the leaf. But we can't track the causes to know how many causal parts there are, and how they all interact to make the leaf sway.

Regarding radiation, we might know some of the parts because we can measure the changes in microscopic quantities of radioactive material, but we don't know exactly why the material dissolves into radiation at the rate in which it does. So, some scientists simply suggest that C&E doesn't work in this case, simply because they don't know all the answers.

It's like saying that the leaf on the tree turns about in the summer breeze spontaneously, because we can't see but a few of the millions of minute forces that are acting on the leaf as it moves. The fact that the material is there, and that the material dissolves into radiation, shows that the whole thing is a C&E operation, even though we don't know the tiny details.

Besides, the scientists don't point-blank say that such radiation is spontaneous without C&E. Rather, they say that it is their idea, and that they think that they have some evidence for lack of C&E.

So, what does this have to do with the fact that evolution is a hoax?

Cool
14  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? on: October 18, 2018, 11:22:30 AM
Here you go. Even the U.N. is agreeing that polio was started by the polio vaccine.

UN Admits Latest Outbreak of Polio in Syria Was Caused by the Polio Vaccine



"Earlier this summer, NPR reported on this very phenomenon, wherein mutant strains from the polio vaccine caused more paralysis than wild polio. Could it really be that a lab-altered version of a virus is more dangerous than the one found in nature? Absolutely. As Jason Beaubien reports, as of June 2017, there were more cases of child paralysis caused by the polio vaccine than the actual, wild-caught disease itself. At the time of his reporting, just six cases of 'wild' polio, which is naturally occurring in the environment, had been reported worldwide."


Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2018/10/un-admits-latest-outbreak-of-polio-in.html.


Cool

We already discussed that. Let me use simple examples. ''Cases die to wild poliovirus have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 22 reported cases in 2017.''

So let's say, we have 350.000 cases of polio, we use the polio vaccine, we get rid of over 99% of all the polio cases but then we are left with some bad side effects, they don't happen too often but they are there. Your article says 33 cases of paralysis due to the vaccine, let's say it's true.

Do you think it would have been better to leave the 350.000 cases of polio exist and prevent those 33 cases of paralysis in the end?

Or perhaps getting rid of 350.000 cases of polio is better even though the vaccine might cause paralysis rarely?

Yes I know it's not a perfect scenario, as already discussed, drugs/medicine have some terrible side effects, however it's better to use them than not.

Let me show you where you are mistaken. It's simple.

We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right? So, what does the fact that polio case numbers are dropping have to do with the idea that polio vaccines are the thing that is doing it?

The only thing your point shows is,
somebody was smart enough to notice the natural drop in polio cases,
and that the natural drop was faster than the polio vaccine made new cases of polio,
and they capitalized on the idea.

In other words, if there never was a polio vaccine, the polio case rate would have dropped even faster. Now we have the proof.

Cool
15  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 18, 2018, 11:05:59 AM

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cool

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

Cool

How does that answer the question of multiple causes? The thing or things that made the universe are outside the universe, the question is, can you prove it's just 1 ''thing'' and not multiple?

Yes, I can prove just one "thing." The "thing" is outside-the-universe. If we were able to understand it as more than one thing, it would be part of the universe, simply by the fact of us being able to understand it that sufficiently.

What does this mean? It means that if you and I were in that outside-the-universe "realm," and we were part of it enough that we could understand it, there might be countless "things" that we would "see" and understand. But since we are not "out there," and don't have any understanding whatsoever of "it," the only thing we know is one "thing"... outside-the-universe.

The only two ways that this can be different are:
1. The universe Maker in some way allows information about outside-the-universe to come to us inside the universe, thereby telling us what the situation is outside-the-universe;
2. We find something within the universe that shows that the universe spontaneously made itself.

Number 1 is a religious idea, and would only be part of this topic if the OP and title had set it up that way. But it is easy to start other topics.

Number 2 is something that we have no example of even within the universe. Everything within the universe is made by something else. Just the idea of something spontaneously making itself doesn't fit with anything that we know. C&E is part of the example of this. So, there is no way to show that the universe might have made itself. Saying such would be directing towards a religion or philosophical thing.

Since I have said all this before, I have something to thank you for. The fact that you ask the question again, shows that my previous explanations weren't clear enough for you. And if they weren't clear enough for you, they probably weren't clear enough for at least a few other people, as well. So, you have given me chance to clarify. And every time I get to clarify, I get the way to explain situated in my mind. So, thank you for this.

Cool
16  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: October 18, 2018, 02:57:37 AM

All you are saying is that there isn't proof for anything, because things might be different somewhere else.

Right here, there isn't even one example of pure random or evolution. But there are lots of examples of C&E, adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change.

You are certainly welcome to head out there to find some proof for random and evolution if you want. Have a nice journey.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are continuing to prove it.

Cool
We have great knowledge how genetic mutations are caused, that they are random, and that they lead to new/different traits being passed on to the next generation. We also know how natural selection works and can see it happening all the time in species with short generation times.   These are all things that are so easily replicable that it is being done in most high school level classes and up. 
But none of these things show us evolution into a new kind of creature. In addition, creating settings for change in a petri dish, is creating, not evolving.



There isn't "proof" of a scientific theory.  You need to understand that scientific theories don't need to be something that we have proof of.  The entire concept of science is crafting an explanation based on the evidence and all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. 
This is exactly the point. Science theory exists to pass on ideas, not to prove that something is factual. Once in a while some science theory is tested in just the right way, and is found to be fact... which takes it out of the realm of science theory.

Evolution theory is just like that. Evolution theory takes a bunch of facts about nature, and tries to say that evolution is real. By the definition of science theory, evolution is real in science theory only... not in the reality of nature. So far, evolution is in the realm of science theory. It isn't a fact of nature. So, why is it touted as being a fact of nature?





Quote
The point is that if people seriously look at the alternate possibility(ies), evolution becomes a not so grandiose of an idea. So, why is evolution promoted as reality? Nobody knows it is reality. Everybody who thinks it is, is denying a whole lot of alternative thinking. Saying fact, when fact is not known, is the thing that makes evolution to be a hoax.
Its not that scientists ignore other explanations, its just that no other explanation has evidence that even comes close to the comprehensive mountain of evidence we have suggesting evolution.  To "prove" evolution with the standards you are referencing, you would need a time machine, so that is a very unscientific argument.

Science still can't tell the difference between adaptation and "programmed" change in like-begets-like. However, if they DID find something that really could be classified as evolution in some petri dish, there is STILL no way to extrapolate backwards into the fossil record to show which of the creatures were evolving and which were not. The two basic reasons why evolution is not proven are: 1) no DNA to check it out the fossil record for sure; 2) C&E means programming, which means that everything was set up to act as it does, and evolution theory is exceptionally hazy on this reality.

Cool
17  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Evolution is a hoax on: October 18, 2018, 02:37:57 AM

I just wanted you to think about it some more.  If the existence of true "randomness" is the only thing that you think is wrong with the Evolution Theory, then you might want to replace that word with something else and see if the theory still holds.

I know that your religious beliefs (that the Earth is 6000 years old etc) influence your reasoning.  Just imagine for a second, if there were no religions and if you looked at the evidence would you still conclude that the explanation is completely wrong?

If you cannot think out of your religious box, then I agree, you will always think that God created man from dirt and woman from a rib bone 6000 years ago.  That is ok, it is wrong, but it is ok for you to believe that.  I fully support your right to your own private delusion.


The fact that there isn't any pure random is simply the bottom line "thing" that is wrong with evolution theory. There are many things wrong with evolution. If you Google "impossible evolution," among the links you will find a lot of evolution sites that state why the impossible idea has been debunked. If you go through the many sites that explain why impossible evolution is debunked, they all state unknown facts for evolution. In other words, they all fail in their debunking of the fact that evolution is impossible.

In simple form, what happens is something like this. The impossible site says that evolution couldn't have happened because of some fact of nature that doesn't fit evolution. The evolution site that attempts to debunk this says that the impossible site is wrong, because we know that evolution is real. Certainly the details of the various sites go much deeper than this simple example, but they all act like this in essence.


As far as religious beliefs, I am not relying on them for the scientific evaluations I show. My religious beliefs only prompted me to figure out who was wrong. What is wrong with the standard age timeline is the fact that we don't know the physics of the earth back beyond about 5,000 years ago, the time the Sumerians and the Bible set for the Great Flood of Noah's day. We can guess that things went on smoothly, backwards beyond the 5,000 years, but we don't know it. In fact, we don't know a lot of things a lot closer to us than 5,000 years.

Why would I try to make waves by saying that we don't know about the physics before 5,000 years ago? It's not to make waves. Rather, it's to simply be honest. All the ideas of what went on prior to 5,000 years ago, are based on things that we see today, and our methods of attempting backwards extrapolation. We don't know what facts about how things worked in the ancient past we are missing in our backward extrapolation. We don't really have a clue that anything is correct in the standard age of the earth calculations back beyond 5,000 years. We are guessing and hoping that things in nature operated back then as they do today, so we CAN make accurate calculations. But we don't know. This means that the idea of billions of years is simply unknown to be factual.


One of the basic reasons that you bring up my religious ideas, is that you KNOW that you don't have any real facts for evolution. Knowing this, you also know that much of your trust in the idea of evolution, is similar to religion. So, you try to bring me into the idea of religion. But evolution theory is based in idea on science. It isn't really based on science, of course. Why not? Because much of evolution theory is guesswork regarding reality. This is shown in the fact that adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change fit so-called evolution happenings at least as good as the evolution idea fits them. So, which is right?

We see and recognize all kinds of adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that has nothing to do with evolution. So, why would we think that some of the adaptation, like-begets-like, and simple change that we see is really evolution because it looks like evolution theory a little? We don't have any reason for doing this.

All you are doing by bringing religion into it is showing that evolution is a religion. How and why? Because if you had anything that was solidly evolution, you would be focusing on that rather than the religion idea.

The absolute only reason why evolution is as popular as it is, is because of the ignorance of people over the decades to see that their findings are not evolution, and the continual hollering of many people, "evolution, evolution, evolution," when they don't know that there is any evolution. Since they don't know evolution is real, but talk like it is real...

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
18  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do you believe God exists? on: October 17, 2018, 10:21:23 PM
There is no evidence of anything magically appearing in this world, Look at buildings, cars and the aeroplanes,  they were all made and it shows that everything has a creator so that means that Human Being who has made all these things must also have a creator,  it's just logical.

There is plenty of evidence of simple living beings evolving to really complex animals, they didn't need a creator.

Spontaneous and autonomous emergence of complex behavior is not evidence against a creator.
 
For Example:

Google's DeepMind AI Just Taught Itself To Walk
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gn4nRCC9TwQ

There is no evidence of a creator, there is evidence that we evolved though.

And no, you can't prove god, using ''logic''.

Who needs evidence since we have proof - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.0 ?

Basic proof for God:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

More proof for God - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg46997819#msg46997819

Cool
19  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? on: October 17, 2018, 10:18:28 PM
Here you go. Even the U.N. is agreeing that polio was started by the polio vaccine.

UN Admits Latest Outbreak of Polio in Syria Was Caused by the Polio Vaccine



"Earlier this summer, NPR reported on this very phenomenon, wherein mutant strains from the polio vaccine caused more paralysis than wild polio. Could it really be that a lab-altered version of a virus is more dangerous than the one found in nature? Absolutely. As Jason Beaubien reports, as of June 2017, there were more cases of child paralysis caused by the polio vaccine than the actual, wild-caught disease itself. At the time of his reporting, just six cases of 'wild' polio, which is naturally occurring in the environment, had been reported worldwide."


Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2018/10/un-admits-latest-outbreak-of-polio-in.html.


Cool
20  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: October 17, 2018, 10:11:56 PM

But the funniest part of everything you say is that you seem to think that this is a personal thing. What's the matter? Don't you like me because I show you science that you can't refute? Don't you think that enough people already know that you are a deceitful troll? Or are you simply subtly putting your resumé out there for anybody who wants to hire a freelance troll? Do you think they will hire you when you troll around this way? Get back on topic, hey?

All the scientific proof that anybody needs to know that God exists is right here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cool

You were never able to prove the cause of the universe is one thing and not multiple, it's as simple as that to disprove your whole argument. Unless you can prove the universe requires only 1 cause or 1 god instead of multiple your argument fails.

There you go. Getting silly again (Did you ever stop being silly?).

Since we don't know anything about outside-the-universe, the one thing that made the universe is Outside-The-Universe. But you knew that, because I already explained it to you. However, thank you for requesting this info again, for the benefit of those who haven't seen it already.

Cool
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 1171 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!