Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution debate persists because it's not science
The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Opinion

Monday, Feb. 23, 2009

Evolution debate persists because it's not science

By Raymond H. Kocot

...

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-661 next last
To: Does so; Alamo-Girl

Humans don’t grasp things?

BTW, a scotch pot cleaning pad has friction strips, too. Some designer someplace...in some soap lab...noticed an obvious idea.


101 posted on 02/23/2009 8:03:12 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal; GodGunsGuts
Is that your point metmom?

No, but don't let that get in the way of your building a strawman because you can't debate the real issues.

102 posted on 02/23/2009 8:05:30 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The article says nothing of the sort.

It is not an article. It is an opinion piece.

103 posted on 02/23/2009 8:06:32 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Yeah, the evos claiming to be conservatives, all the while proceeding with their anti-God agenda by pushing God out of public life and giving their approval to groups like the NEA and ACLU in their anti-Christian efforts, IS a real stain on conservatism.

Grand-sweeping-generalization Placemarker.

(See my ***Tagline***)

104 posted on 02/23/2009 8:09:20 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

150 years? Let it alone. Not worth wasting the time or money on this. Allow those....if you really have to allow them.....to believe whatever they want to believe.


105 posted on 02/23/2009 8:09:37 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu; Westbrook; GodGunsGuts; tpanther; YHAOS; Fichori; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; ...
It's inherently paradoxical for a true scientist to be a creationist. Science *necessitates* materialism. Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

So much for the the Bible and evolution being compatible fairy tale that the evos like to foist off an everyone.

106 posted on 02/23/2009 8:11:40 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Yes, your tagline proves my point.

Commenting on others like that is “Another-stain-on-Conservatism”.


107 posted on 02/23/2009 8:13:45 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science.

The non-surprising answer is that there are certain religious people who want to keep people ignorant, and deny the truth of God's creation.

108 posted on 02/23/2009 8:14:08 AM PST by Moonman62 (I didn't compromise my soul to be popular. -- Jimmy Carter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

> Anybody that has actually studied reasoning should know that.

Apparently, Louis Pasteur didn’t get the memo.

Neither did Isaac Newton, but he predated Darwin.


109 posted on 02/23/2009 8:15:00 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

That's looks like a double-edged sword that's going to cut down ID, right along with "macroevolution".

110 posted on 02/23/2009 8:16:44 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
No, but don't let that get in the way of your building a strawman because you can't debate the real issues.

If you mean by the “real” issues you mean; the erosion of our Constitution, nationalization of private business, wealth confiscation, Socialism?

I’m willing to debate the “real” issues. Why aren’t you?

Arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just don’t seem all that important to me right now in the bigger scheme of things.



“If I only had a brain” said the Scarecrow.
111 posted on 02/23/2009 8:24:27 AM PST by Caramelgal (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

“The “scientific method” didn’t bring “man out of the Dark Ages.”
Charlemagne did.”

Gee, I thought the Crusades started the process!


112 posted on 02/23/2009 8:31:18 AM PST by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

> Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)

Your tagline lends support to my observation that evolutionists have little else to counter their opponents than ad hominem.

Explain to all of us ignorant amplifying the stupid how a dinosaur transitions to a bird, given the unsurvivability of any intermediate species, as well as the lack of any evidence thereof in the fossil record, except, of course, for the occasional hoax.

No evidence whatsoever can be found in the fossil record of transitions from cold-blooded to warm-blooded, from a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered heart, from solid bones to hollow bones, and myriad other differences between amphibians and birds.

In order to adapt to this, Evolutionism had to evolve into “Hopeful Monsters”. Problem is, the Hopeful Monster would have to find another Hopeful Monster of the opposite gender that mutated at the same generation in the same place. A statistical joy.

You are free to believe this nonsense, couch it in scientific terminology, promote it, hype it, revel in it, evangelize it. But you can do so without my money.

Evolutionism should be relegated to the discussion of comparative religions, or, at best, in a discussion of theories of origin outside of the science classroom.

Theories of origins are not scientific, because the processes cannot be observed, nor can they be reproduced. You cannot prove randomness by design, as one obviates the other.


113 posted on 02/23/2009 8:31:50 AM PST by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Yeah, the evos claiming to be conservatives, all the while proceeding with their anti-God agenda by pushing God out of public life and giving their approval to groups like the NEA and ACLU in their anti-Christian efforts, IS a real stain on conservatism.

Interesting rant since I have not seen any 'evos' here trying to push God out of the public life nor any supporting the NEA and ACLU. OTOH, it has been posted by you that you want to take evolution out of the public schools. Who has what to fear from whom?

114 posted on 02/23/2009 8:31:59 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Until someone can be totally positive, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that science is true, correct, fact, the last word, there's no way that it can be used to be the standard by which everything is measured.

The thinking that science is *right* by default, and Scripture is *wrong* by default when the two are at odds, has no basis at all, nor does it have any precedence that supports it. It's merely a preference based on one philosophical outlook.

You are correct that science sometimes contradicts itself, though not as much as you seem to believe. Also, new discoveries are made that refine -- sometimes even turn over -- older theories. For example, the theory of relativity did not toss out Newtonian physics, but refined it.

Did you know that there are apparent contradictions in the Bible, too? For example, compare the geneologies in Matthew 1:6-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. I believe that the Bible is literally true, and I know several possible ways of reconciling the contradiction. How would you explain the contradiction?

Much scientific knowledge is known beyond a reasonable doubt. For example: the age of the universe. Yes, scientists may disagree whether it is 13.7 or 14.5 billion years old, but no one believes that it is 6,000 years old. The evidence is completely, 100% against it. A 14 billion-year old universe does not contradict the Bible. To understand that, one has to understand the various meanings that Hebrew words can have.

God's general revelation through his creation cannot contradict God's revealed word to us through his Bible. All truth is God's truth.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Remember how Christians fought against Galileo's discoveries? Christians of the day used the Bible to prove that the sun revolved around the earth. Let's hope that the nonsense about a 6,000-year old earth dies the same death, albeit much more quickly.


115 posted on 02/23/2009 8:36:11 AM PST by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Removing the foundation from Neo-Atheism.

Is your fire suit deployed?


116 posted on 02/23/2009 8:40:44 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
Over by then. Charlemagne beat them to it.

Without digressing on Petrarch's metaphor in philology and rhetoric on "dark ages" and related controversies, it's plausible only as the short period after the fall of the Roman Empire.

The development of scientific method is a very long, drawn-out process from Roger Bacon's experiments through the 17th century. The additional problem is that the triumph of scientism and moral relativism in the present day coincides with the Islamicization of Europe and the reappearance of nose rings and butt tattoos on women.

117 posted on 02/23/2009 8:50:24 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

You should like DallasMike, he will lick Evo boots for a pat on the head. He claims to be a scientist. But like you, he tends to make wild claims not supported by the evidence, confuses basic concepts that even high school earth science students know, will ridicule and disavow fellow Christians to be accepted by the Temple of Darwin, and is not above lying in his endless quest to gain the approval of God-hating atheists and materialists. If you have any self-respect at all, I would imagine you hate lukewarm sellouts no matter which side of the debate they happen to call their own. So I thought I’d present you with a few links to show DallasMike in action:

FYI re: DallasMike

This is the method DallasMike chose to enter the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#85

Here is where I correct DallasMike’s slander:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=51#97

Here is where DallasMike confuses inflation with expansion, saying that inflation has been “observed” since 1929! And then uses a link that actually states just the opposite to call the creationist author of the original article a “liar.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#229

Here is where I point out that his own link says just the opposite, namely that inflation is not observed, and was postulated to fix problems with the Big Bang:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=201#237

But DallasMike keeps posting the same balderdash confusing inflation with expansion. I finally ask Mr. “Scientist” if he knows the difference between inflation and expansion here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#245

...and here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?page=245#246

And then DallasMike, the great Christian and “scientist” has the audacity to pretend he knew the difference all along:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175104/posts?q=1&;page=251#257

And then after fraudulantly trying to claim that he knew the difference all along, he repeats the same claim (which he now knows is a lie) all over again further down the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2175104/posts?page=290#290

This isn’t about whether DallasMike is an OEC or a YEC. If DallasMike were on my side of the debate and I caught him slandering and lying, I would call him on it in a second. If he was a scientist under my employ, I would fire him even faster.


118 posted on 02/23/2009 8:53:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Does so; ketsu
"Humans have them because?"

All physical function requires friction. It is irreplaceable in the physical universe.

119 posted on 02/23/2009 8:55:29 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This isn’t about whether DallasMike is an OEC or a YEC. If DallasMike were on my side of the debate and I caught him slandering and lying, I would call him on it in a second.

I have NEVER seen you call on someone on your side for slandering or lying!

120 posted on 02/23/2009 8:58:14 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Caramelgal
"No, but don't let that get in the way of your building a strawman because you can't debate the real issues."

I see that you and Carmelgal (AKA Strawgal) have met :o)

121 posted on 02/23/2009 8:59:10 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
All physical function requires friction. It is irreplaceable in the physical universe.

How does a light photon travel billions of miles without losing energy through friction?

122 posted on 02/23/2009 8:59:33 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Good morning, Allmendream. I thought I’d poor you a cup of right-back-at-ya d:op

Geology debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because the Evos disagree with its findings.

Astronomy debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because Evos disagree with its findings.

Physics debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because Evos disagree with its findings.


123 posted on 02/23/2009 9:00:06 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I think this article was too ambitious. It tried to cover too much. I found it a bit choppy as it quickly went from one element of the debate to another, without fleshing out any particular element. Still, it had it’s good points.

I have sympathy for the author. Sometimes one wants to cover a lot of ground quickly. However the gulf that separates people is sometimes too great.

For example, last night I spoke with a liberal relative and suggested that the new deal did not work. He responded that he was well aware of recent “partisan” interpretations of the new deal. When I said Reagan turned the economy around. He said Reagan left the country bankrupt. When I mentioned that government recently pressured banks to make subprime loans, he responded with incredulity that there was “no regulation” in some financial markets. If I mention socialism in America, he laughs. If the economy ends up stinking after eight years of Obama and Democratic Congresses, he will conclude that Obama inherited a really big mess. It is not surprising that he gets a lot of liberal news; the news industry is liberal. It just isn’t possible for me to convert him in one conversation. So there. I vented. But I also tried to make the point that it is just about impossible to quickly get through to someone who has a different world view.

Can this author, in a single article, convince generations who have been indoctrinated on “the fact of evolution” in high school and college? It just isn’t possible.

I enjoyed parts of the article. Other parts left me confused:

“Three decades after his gene theory was rejected by the scientific community, he ridiculed scientists that touted intelligent design theory.”

Is the author referring to Dawkins (of the previous paragraph)?

There are many fields of interest to mankind. Some are amenable to repeatable laboratory experiments. Some are amenable to frequent field observation. Some are amenable to firm reason, logic, and mathematical analysis. Some are amenable to introspection. Some “explain,” some “predict.” The differences are in the subject matter, more so than the skills of the individuals who pursue the topics.

I read Darwin’s Origin of the Species and found it to be highly speculative. Since it was written, generations have followed his leads and searched for evidence for evolution. The subject remains speculative.

Gould and Etheridge revised the theory to dispense with the need for fossil evidence. Then they admitted that the fossil record did not support change (Darwin’s evolution) but stasis. In one fell swoop, the supposedly massive fossil evidence for evolution was declared null and void. No one was too upset with Gould and Etheridge because they were on the right side: they believed in evolution and Gould, the more outspoken, ridiculed creationists. Is this science where people first agree on the answer, then accept or reject facts at their convenience? I think not.


124 posted on 02/23/2009 9:00:35 AM PST by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

DallasMike claims to be a Christian and a creationist, and I’m calling him a liar.


125 posted on 02/23/2009 9:01:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; DallasMike
DallasMike claims to be a Christian and a creationist, and I’m calling him a liar.

I take it that DallasMike is not on your side?

126 posted on 02/23/2009 9:07:42 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”

Dr. George Wald
Evolutionist


127 posted on 02/23/2009 9:07:45 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Physics debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because Evos disagree with its findings.

Where do Evos disagree with physics?

128 posted on 02/23/2009 9:08:58 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike; GodGunsGuts
You're correct -- GGG has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his educational and work background.

He doesn't need to. His education consists of what he was told in Sunday School at the age of seven and his work background consists solely of posting threads to FR.

129 posted on 02/23/2009 9:11:11 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike; metmom
"Much scientific knowledge is known beyond a reasonable doubt. For example: the age of the universe. Yes, scientists may disagree whether it is 13.7 or 14.5 billion years old, but no one believes that it is 6,000 years old."

The ramblings of one devoid of understanding.

All "old age" estimates of the age of the universe fail because they disregard the expansion of time that had to go hand in hand with the expansion of space. There has to be a point from which all things originated, and expanded, and at that point the true age is quite small.

Earth is that point. (whether you like it or not)

"compare the geneologies in Matthew 1:6-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. I believe that the Bible is literally true, and I know several possible ways of reconciling the contradiction. How would you explain the contradiction?"

If you were a Bible student rather than a Bible attacker, you would probably know that God declared that certain people would be removed from Israel's history for their idolatry, and constant disobediance. They happen to be the ones missing from that geneology. Amazing, huh?

130 posted on 02/23/2009 9:18:44 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
All "old age" estimates of the age of the universe fail because they disregard the expansion of time that had to go hand in hand with the expansion of space. There has to be a point from which all things originated, and expanded, and at that point the true age is quite small.

According to theory, with acceleration time slows down. Therefore the '24 hours' in the Bible (told to us in our frame of reference were actually billions of years in real time.

131 posted on 02/23/2009 9:22:04 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

==Where do Evos disagree with physics?

Starlight and time—a further breakthrough

A stunning new book by a physics professor purports to show more firmly than ever how light from the most distant stars would have reached Earth in a very short time.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184/


132 posted on 02/23/2009 9:22:18 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

A photon is not matter, and is absorbed if it encounters matter. It can continue to propagate only as long as it contacts nothing.


133 posted on 02/23/2009 9:24:44 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
"

Are you a sixth grader just beginning to read old sci-fi books?

The obvious problem with your stupid idea is that it is the rest of the universe, not Earth that is accelerated away from us.

134 posted on 02/23/2009 9:30:05 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Here is your scientific proof? Egad!

“By plugging this ‘galactocentric’ universe into Carmeli’s equations, and then adding the biblical ‘stretching out of the heavens’ by God at creation (big bangers can scarcely disagree, as they call something like that ‘inflation’), what ‘falls out’ is an astonishing by-product. Namely, that there are built-in gravitational time-dilating effects”


135 posted on 02/23/2009 9:30:21 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
"Therefore the '24 hours' in the Bible (told to us in our frame of reference were actually billions of years in real time."

Are you a sixth grader just beginning to read old sci-fi books?

The obvious problem with your stupid idea is that it is the rest of the universe, not Earth that is accelerated away from us.

136 posted on 02/23/2009 9:30:24 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You really are a sixth grader!


137 posted on 02/23/2009 9:31:28 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Quote-mine Bump from a reliable source ("Wald served as part of Ramsey Clark's delegation to Iran during the Iran hostage crisis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald )

Quote mine project Placemarker.....................
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4-2.html

See my ***Tagline***

138 posted on 02/23/2009 9:31:33 AM PST by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.


139 posted on 02/23/2009 9:31:52 AM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
A photon is not matter, and is absorbed if it encounters matter. It can continue to propagate only as long as it contacts nothing.

But you said that friction was a reality in all physical functions. Movement of a photon is a physical function. Friction requires energy to overcome thus according you your definition a photon should lose energy based on how far it travels.

140 posted on 02/23/2009 9:33:08 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Little child playing childish games, how cute!


141 posted on 02/23/2009 9:34:25 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
A photon is not matter, and is absorbed if it encounters matter. It can continue to propagate only as long as it contacts nothing.

Wrong. It can propagate after is 'contacts' mass. That is why we can see objects!

142 posted on 02/23/2009 9:34:29 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Wrong!!!!

The photons we see didn’t contact any matter; they were repelled by other photons.


143 posted on 02/23/2009 9:36:11 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The obvious problem with your stupid idea is that it is the rest of the universe, not Earth that is accelerated away from us.

Oh, I forgot. The earth is fixed in place and the sun revolves around the earth.

144 posted on 02/23/2009 9:36:35 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The photons we see didn’t contact any matter; they were repelled by other photons.

Please reference that hypothesis. Better you should research this and gain a little knowledge.

145 posted on 02/23/2009 9:37:50 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Tis you that need to gain the knowledge. Clue: study “color”


146 posted on 02/23/2009 9:39:04 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Tis you that need to gain the knowledge. Clue: study “color”

Can't back up your false science, again.

147 posted on 02/23/2009 9:42:09 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The photons we see didn’t contact any matter; they were repelled by other photons.

Let me see if I have this straight. There are lots of photons running around in matter and they never get out. Along comes a photon headed for this mass but bounces away because it was repelled by some photon inside of the matter?

What keeps all those photons inside the matter?

148 posted on 02/23/2009 9:49:09 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

You worship the strawman!


149 posted on 02/23/2009 9:50:01 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The photons we see didn’t contact any matter; they were repelled by other photons.

But we can see that repelled photon because the matter in our eyes does not have any photons with which to repell that photon?

150 posted on 02/23/2009 9:50:53 AM PST by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-661 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson