No. The types of arguments are the same, as is the willful misunderstanding of science and tendency to just ignore other peoples posts. Stripe is more likely to present his viewpoint in his own words. And Dave is far more polite.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
No. The types of arguments are the same, as is the willful misunderstanding of science and tendency to just ignore other peoples posts. Stripe is more likely to present his viewpoint in his own words. And Dave is far more polite.
The force of gravity (F) between two masses is equal to the gravitational constant (G) times the mass of both bodies divided by the square of the distance between the two bodies.
From Wikipedia...
In modern language, the law states: Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798. It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and approximately 71 years after his death.
So now Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn do not exist?
I've seen each of those planets with my own eyes.
Further, we have instruments sensitive enough to measure the parallax of several of the closest stars and thus we know by direct visual observation that they are light years away. And so even if you wanted to suggest that the universe is only something less than 200 light years across, that's still one whopping big thing to be having spin around the stationary Earth once a day.
Further still, regardless of how big the universe is, you cannot explain the details of the movements which I went to some trouble to look up and write about in my last post.
There is no such test.
As this website proves multiple times a day, saying it doesn't make it so. Evolutionists can say anything they want. It doesn't make it true nor even scientific.
There are actually several environmental factors that have been shown to be able to affect DNA. It does not create it but that doesn't mean it isn't affected. DNA can be damaged by a lot of things. Then there are natural mutations which are always deadly. But even leaving those two things aside, genes can turn on or off depending on environmental factors. That isn't creating new information, though. In fact, there's little doubt that such things are controlled by instructions present within the DNA. In effect, DNA is designed to adapt the organism to environmental factors, at least to some degree. You could say that natural selection is hardwired into the DNA.
Quite right.
This is sort of getting on my nerves. You know what is meant and we have already discussed this. Nature is not making a choice in the sense that there is a thinking mind. It is a figure of speech. It simply refers to the idea that some organism can better survive and reproduce than others in a given environment. Since environments change naturally then some organisms are going to survive and others aren't. The one's that survive are said to have been naturally selected.
Now, please don't bring this objection up again. Who wants to repeat themselves over and over on a point that isn't even real? Literally no one believes that nature is making mental decisions.
Yes, there is a gene for fastness. Of course, there is. That's why Cheetahs are faster than other cats and why DeMarco Murray is faster than me. It isn't a gene for 'fastness' per se. It's a gene or set of genes that allow for particular kinds of muscle and bone to grow in greater quantity and/or density which allows for faster running.
And you wrong on your last point as well. If, in a particular environment, one set of cheetahs are able to catch more prey than another set (for whatever reason) they will, in turn, be able to live longer and raise more offspring (all other factors being equal) and as a result, given sufficient time, the more successful version of cheetah will come to dominate that population. Once again, it isn't anything other than math.
Clete
I asked you how the atmosphere is held and moved by gravity and you give me the Cavendish Experiment. I think the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac's experiments tell us more about the movement, or non-movement, of the earth than Cavendish's does.
So just how does "large balls hung from a frame so they could be rotated into position next to the small balls by a pulley" tell me how the atmosphere is "held" and "pulled" by gravity as the earth rotates. Were these "balls" filled with atmosphere?
:rotfl:
View attachment 25176
There's a variety of stars, some bigger, some smaller, different colors, etc, many have names like Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. God made the earth, sun, moon, and stars. He never said he made "other" planets, galaxies, suns, or universes.
--Dave
I think we let evolutionists get away with quibbling over the mechanism of evolution. Who cares? Even if we had no idea of how it works- evolution remmains an observed fact.
Greg Jennings
New member
'Twas a joke. The point being that he agrees with Stripe, which is the only reason that he's treating Stripe's crazier ideas differently from Dave's current notions
Last edited:
Greg Jennings
New member
Sorry to butt in, but have you ever seen a planet through a telescope, Dave?
You could prove to yourself that Venus exists and isn't a star by putting a bit of money into getting your own telescope instead of putting your time into YouTube conspiracy videos.
The reason I say that is this: when you say that the planets aren't round balls in space, you completely lose everyone here that HAS seen the planets through a telescope, because they know you are wrong thanks to their own observations. I, for example, can completely disregard any notion that you are right about the solar system because I have seen the planets. And you could too!
Ridiculous.
You are welcome to argue about whether evolution is an observed fact. Arguing about the mechanism is pointless.
Neato. What will you do with that advantage?
Allow you to continue to think that evolution is observable.
If you are seeing the videos on stars that I have posted from P900 lens you will notice the movement of light that appears around them. If these stars/planets are billions of light years away from us then how does this happen? Wouldn't there be just a steady light that we would see? What we are seeing is not what one would expect if they were so far away.
--Dave
- Status