Big Bang Scam Evolutionists Need To Be Smacked Upside The Head With A Board From Noah's Ark

Big Bang - Big Scam, Or Sometimes Evolutionists Need To Be Smacked Upside The Head With A Board From Noah's Ark

\

In the Great Debate that has the Public Fool System fighting any challenge to the Theory Of Evolution, we must remember that many jobs - especially in Universities - would be at risk for the profs and their underlings - who must defend the THEORY, or find a more honest occupation elsewhere. An Intelligent Designer (why not just say God?) advocate on the college campus is scoffed at as a latter day Ptolemy, who believed that the earth was the center of the universe, or as just a plain "flat earther." P.S. Long before Bill Moyers and other Libs acknowledged that Christians were not as erudite as they, Darwin and contemporaries accused faithful Christians as being "flat earthers," and so the lie continues to this day. See The Myth Of The Flat Earth http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html

However, with all the loopholes, faults, and guesses which are the foundations of Darwinism and the Big Bang Cosmology, it looks more like the Evolutionary Theory (a cornerstone of Communism) belongs to a snobby crowd of pseudo scientists who are constantly selling the Theory as if it is a Scientific Law. The experiment of Evolution cannot be repeated and has no witnesses, or transitional forms yet proponents are defending ET as if it is something provable, like Ohms Law I=E/R,or Boyle's LawP1*V1=P2*V2, Newton's Second Law F=MA, etc. Giving ET legal status is in part responsible for the Public Ed Law which is PS (Public Schools) = LB (Lagging Behind third world nations in everything from literacy to science). IOW, The advocates of Unintelligent Nondesign are attempting to convince public school students that ET can pass for law, even though it is a mish mosh system of contradictory hypotheses, and therefore, should not be passed off as Scientific Law. Why not call Psychiatry and Social Science theorems - LAW? And, indeed, the soft sciences have been elevated to concrete science: The Law That All Spanking Is Bad, and the Law That Homosexuality Is Genetic are in place, although there is no supporting evidence. We are sending graduates out into the world - and to college - believing that anything they do is LAW, now that THEORY=LAW. BTW, Illegal aliens are given legal rights by the same people.

There are many reasons why the United States is losing ground and Ye Olde Yankee Ingenuity has been lagging in inventions, patents, research, and computer programming. We are wasting so much time in the schools teaching social reengineering and teaching THEORY = LAW,that we are not getting much Big Bang for our Buck investment in the Public Schools. China spends about 300 Dollars per student per year, and the United States spends as much as 10,000 Dollars per student, and the Chinese students are speaking better English.

It does not take much to establish a LAW in science thanks to Evolutionary Theory. As a matter of fact, all you need to get published in cosmological, geological or anthropological journals is to smoke mountains of dope like Carl Sagan, fantasize the most incredible scenario (like we accidentally evolved from stardust over 18 billion years), get a good graphics generator like Paintbrush,and voila, you got a publishable theory which will be called LAW without scientific prerequisites. The Discovery Channel and the NY Times will also be there to publish your new, yet errant, discovery. Journalists are so anxious to print anything that may support the No-God theories, especially if the new discovery adds an extra million years on to the age of anything or anybody. Evolution needs billlllllllllllllllllions of years as Carl Sagan pronounced it in order to accommodate the accidental formation of everything.

The only transitional forms that the pseudo scientists have is faked fossils (http://www.taiwanfm.com.tw/fake/fakep1.htm) such as the "Bird Fossil" made in a suburb of Beijing China which specializes in the clever production of faked fossils. Yes, there are cities around the world which are built around the cottage industries which fabricate fossils for the geologist and anthropologist who is ever so eager to snatch them up and be assured of publishing and a promotion at the university.

Most unscientific in Darwinism are the dating techniques. None are reliable, and all can be in error by several thousand percent. Fossils are dated according to the age of the rocks surrounding them, and rocks are dated by the fossils found in their vicinity. Circular Reasoning. Another faulty standard used by Unintelligent Nondesigners is rock strata which can have "younger" fossils abiding in strata BELOW older fossils. Recently, a non creationist anthropologist found (See http://www.icr.org/pubs/af/pdf/af0506.pdf ) soft tissue and blood cells in the bone of a dinosaur in Montana. A seventy million year old dinosaur with soft tissue? Must be an accident for soft tissue not to break down in 70 Million Years! How about those ancient cave paintings in Chauvet, France which are a reported to be 30,000 years old? Sherwin Williams should sneak into those caves and chemically analyze the drawings for a nice long-lasting house paint product. Radio Carbon, Potassium Argon etc., dating techniques have been proven errant, but that will not stop a tenured professor from using them so as to extend his reputation. There are just too many Evolutionary fakeries, foibles, and fudgings of fact to list here, but for a good primer on the Top Ten Reasons The Earth Is Not That Old, look at the following website at the Institute For Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-384.htm

Unintelligent Nondesign (Evolution) does not even need to be countered by an Intelligent Design curricula in the Public School System. Merely allow the introduction of Some Critical Criticism of the Darwinists theory, and let the Evolutionary cowchips fall where they may.

[Obviously not Evolution]

Flapdoodle!

First:

Here is a nice page of what a theory is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."

For Laws:

"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."

Let me post my example of gravity:

A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

Where:

F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m₁ equals the mass of the first object
m₂ equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10^-11 N*m²/kg² (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

And finally:

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Second:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.