Evolutionists cant face reality. They are so brainwashed with evo-dogma that they cant see the obvious truth right in front of their face.
That racist hack, Charles Darwin, really did a number on the world with his Masonic-based disinfo theory. Thanks Charlie!!! If the discovery of DNA had happened during Darwin's time then his theory would have been scoffed at by the vast majority.
What kind of moronic question is that? Your wording of that question is horrendous
Discrete is an adjective used to describe things like affairs, secret activity, and things meant to keep hush about
There's nothing discrete about DNA when its being viewed under an electron microscope. Its essentially binary code for biological machines. DNA is the programming___Francis Collins (Language of God)
@buffboynick "Discrete is an adjective used to describe things like affairs, secret activity, and things meant to keep hush about" There is another meaning of discrete, I suggest you look it up retard. Considering you have a degree in physics you should have come across this distinction.
@buffboynick "I also have a degree in "Troll-Spotting" and you sir, are an ignorant trolling buffoon." Well, ignorant people have trouble telling the difference between discreet and discrete, retard.
DNA didnt design itself, just as a computer chip and Binary Code didnt design itself either.
Mount Rushmore didnt design itself either.
Design (art, music, books, architecture, sculpture, space shuttle, jets, computers, lasers, machines, and biological machines aka ALL LIFE) demands a designer. Plain and simple.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Design (art, music, books, architecture, sculpture, space shuttle, jets, computers, lasers, machines, and biological machines aka ALL LIFE) demands a designer. Plain and simple." So, according to you, if you find a piece of driftwood and you say 'this driftwood is a piece of art', you are conferring the status of art object onto the piece of wood, even though you didn't design it.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Using your idiotic "driftwood" as an example....." That example comes from George Dickie, a noted philosopher of aesthetics.
"The atoms and molecules that make up a piece of wood (giving it physicality : length, width, depth) didnt magically make themselves. Understand tard?" I was merely trying to make the point that using art objects as examples of design is unsuitable precisely for that reason. If you referred to an art object as an artefact, that wouldn't be a problem.
Energy is the reason for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it just takes another form. Its proven its eternal and doesnt need atoms to exist.
Energy is the ONLY thing which was never "designed". It simply exists. Matter and the 4 Fundamental Forces cannot say the same. Since they didnt exist until the "Big Bang". These are called FACTS.
@evoTARDSareINSANE Why are you telling me about the first law of thermodynamics? I wouldn't ask a retard who thinks anti-matter is hypothetical, FACT.
You apparently are less knowledgable about Physics then you are of Biology.
Anti-Matter has never been officially proven. There is some good evidence for it, but (just like Dark Energy) its technically labeled "hypothetical"
Also, the Big Bang itself is still labeled as hypothetical. I do believe there is some truth in the Big Bang concept though (its just not a complete theory yet)
The video link below from Physicist Michio Kaku (yep, he is a Physicist, unlike you) will educate you on the search for hypothetical "antimatter"
/watch?v=Oo8a9FCgnfk
Antimatter most likely exists, but ONLY empirical evidence can confirm its existence. By the way, if it does exist....the government would be very interested in weaponizing it for an "antimatter bomb"
Many things in Physics is "hypothetical". Hence the title "theoretical physicist" Michio Kaku.
@DisprovingEvolution Er, retard, this question is for etai, why are you answering for him, eh?
"Antimatter most likely exists, but ONLY empirical evidence can confirm its existence." I have watched the first 30 seconds of this video, and Michio Kaku mentions TWO examples of its existence. Are you really that fucking retarded?
I watched the video again, where does he say anti-matter is hypothetical? He does give three examples of its existence. Didn't you notice that retard?
and no, Kaku (and most physicists) believe anti-matter exists, but they dont know it for a fact. Its still in its hypothetical phase of physics understanding. Kaku gives evidence for its existence, but no empirical evidence. Did you even watch the video?
They still dont know how this supposed antimatter even works and why they cant find more of it. You're acting as if its proven, like gravity.
@DisprovingEvolution This is from the website you gave me: "Fermilab is the largest producer of antimatter today, being able to produce roughly 60 billion antiprotons per hour." Why are you giving me evidence that goes against what you are saying?
Yes, you clearly got owned.
"Do you think the Big Bang is 100% confirmed as well? You need to watch some Alex Collier lol" That's the retard who thinks that electrons are attracted to each other.
@buffboynick "Nice "cherry picking". Tsky McTsk!" It sounds like you are cherry picking. Kaku gave an example of its existence, scientists know it exists. The Kaku video and the CERN link discuss why there is so little observable anti matter in the universe. They don't discuss the hypothetical nature of anti-matter per se, because we already have empirical evidence of it. Try not to get confused retard.
@buffboynick "Learn to accept being PWNED." It sounds like you can't accept being pawned, you didn't know it existed before I told you, and you try to worm your way out by splitting hairs. What a Coward.
A single proton is essentially the same as a positive hydrogen ion. Are you saying that isn't matter, retard?
@buffboynick "Actually (since I clearly know more about physics) I exposed your fallacy." Now you say: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)"
From wikipedia's antineutron page: "The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered." Retard.
Also, do you have a point or are you just trolling again? I already said I believe both anitmatter and dark energy exist. They arent yet 100% proven yet. Understand tard?
@buffboynick "Also, do you have a point or are you just trolling again?" The same point I've been making for over six months fraud. Don't go lying about your credentials. Understand tard?
The term antineutron is not a true antiparticle because you cant have an opposite charge for something with no charge.
They call it antineutron in order to separate it from a typical neutron particle. Nothing can be "anti neutral"
Explain to us all how something that is truly "neutral" can have a counterpart? The answer....it cant. Antineutron is an oxymoron. Also, I debunked your claim on anitmatter atoms being empirically proven. Understand TARD?
@buffboynick "Explain to us all how something that is truly "neutral" can have a counterpart? The answer....it cant. Antineutron is an oxymoron." Well the theory states that when a particle comes into contact with its antiparticle, they annihilate each other, releasing energy. That wouldn't happen with two neutrons, or two anti-neutrons.
@buffboynick " Also, I debunked your claim on anitmatter atoms being empirically proven." Well, retard, you didn't.
Again, wikipedia anti-hydrogen page: "In 1995, the first antihydrogen was produced by a team of researchers under the lead of Walter Oelert at the CERN laboratory in Geneva."
And also (since you like using Wikipedia) here is a quote from the first sentence of the Antimatter page on Wikipedia.....
"In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles"
Notice the word "concept"???
Antimatter has a LONG way to go before it reaches the official status of "confirmed". Hard to prove something so hard to find!!
"In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment.The antihydrogen atoms created during PS210 and subsequent experiments (at both CERN and Fermilab) were extremely energetic ("hot") and were not well suited to study."
You conveniently left out the last part ^ "not suitable to study"
You do realize that empirical data requires numerous tests right? PWNED like a TARD
@buffboynick "On April 26, 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes). This was longer than neutral antimatter had ever been trapped before." You didn't read on did you retard.
@buffboynick "So you're stating that 17 minutes of testing is "empirical proof"?" Er, what tests were they doing?
"Wow, no wonder you cant understand the scientific method, hahahaah!!!" Um, this is coming from someone who thought that neutrons don't have anti-matter counterparts.
@buffboynick "See your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty tard?" Be careful what you say, or I'll say: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)" Retard.
I stated the term "antineutron" is not accurate (since you cant have a counterpart to something that is neutral)
A better term would be alternate neutron. The idea of an "antineutron" is a misnomer.
As for "17 minutes of data"....the supposed antimatter atoms they trapped didnt exist long enough to be studied "empirically". Which is why further testing needed for confirmation
I need more then 17 minutes of proof before I say "non hypothetical" because UNLIKE YOU, I have a degree
@buffboynick "As for "17 minutes of data"....the supposed antimatter atoms they trapped didnt exist long enough to be studied "empirically"." Where does it say this retard?
"I stated the term "antineutron" is not accurate (since you cant have a counterpart to something that is neutral)" Er, yes you can, that's just a misunderstanding of the words retard.
"I need more then 17 minutes of proof before I say "non hypothetical" because UNLIKE YOU, I have a degree" No, you don't retard.
Its clear you have no point in this discussion since you're trying to convince me "antimatter" exists when I already know it does (thanks to Alex Collier)
Tell us all why you believe in Core, Mantle, Crust Theory?
Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)
@buffboynick "Its clear you have no point in this discussion since you're trying to convince me "antimatter" exists when I already know it does (thanks to Alex Collier)" No, same point I made before, DON"T LIE ABOUT YOUR CREDENTIALS.
@buffboynick "Tell us all why you believe in Core, Mantle, Crust Theory?
Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)" Now you're just changing the subject retard. They have compared the average density of the earth's crust with that of the earth overall. The inner layers are considerably denser than the outer layers, so the earth being filled with air is unlikely.
@buffboynick "Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)" Well, I provided some for you, why didn't you notice it before retard?
The deepest depth drilled into the Crust was the Soviet Kola Superborehole Project which ONLY drilled 7.6 Miles down__FACT.
Also, seismic readings show the Earth vibrates like a Bell.
Plus the satellite images of the pole have holes in them (rather funny NASA can see galaxies light years away but cant produce a clear image of the Poles). No empirical data in Inner Earth exists. Also, in HET....the crust is 800 miles thick, not 100% hollow.
@buffboynick "But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical"" Er, retard, you get trans uranic elements with half lives that are smaller than a billionth of a second, but you need 17 minutes for anti-matter. Learn some physics retard.
@buffboynick "I have empirical evidence you're a tard, and I accumulated MUCH MORE than 17 minutes of data on it." Come on then fraud, where is it?
"If Alex Collier told you that he had 17 minutes of data confirming the Earth is Hollow than would you believe that." If Collier the retard told me that the current british monarch was Queen Elizabeth II, I wouldn't believe him.
@buffboynick "But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical"" OK mr physicist, how long do they have to be studied so as to be considered non-hypothetical?
Just to spank you even further with the scientific method, where does it say that this trapping of antihydrogen for 1000s gave unreliable data? Arguing over the length of time of 1000s shows you are splitting hairs again.
Do you still think that neutrons don't have anti-matter counterparts, retard?
Not only did I school you on antimatter and the scientific method.....but I successfully proved you're intellectually UNable to use Wikipedia LOL.
A site which 5 years olds can use.
Empirical data requires consistent testing. Also, like I said....I believe antimatter does exist and will one day be confirmed through numerous tests.
So what is your point? That you're a tard? If so, you successfully proved you are one.
Take from Wikipedia in the Origin and Asymmetry section of the Antimatter article....
"Almost all matter observable from the Earth seems to be made of matter rather than antimatter. If antimatter-dominated regions of space existed, the gamma rays produced in annihilation reactions along the boundary between matter and antimatter regions would be detectable."
Can you read Wikipedia particles thoroughly or only small "cherry picked" sections?
@buffboynick "Can you read Wikipedia particles thoroughly or only small "cherry picked" sections?" Hypocrite.
Read the whole article, retard. What you are referring to is the lack of large amounts of anti-matter in the observable universe, not to the lack of evidence of anti-matter's existence.
@buffboynick "Understand how the scientific method works fraud?" Be careful who you call a fraud cunt. I bet you're learning more about science than you have in the past 5 years, just by getting fucked off by me.
@buffboynick Just to remind you: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)" Like I said fraud, don't lie about your credentials.
@buffboynick From wikipedia's anti-matter page: "In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment."
Would that satisfy you're definition of anti-matter retard?
Also tard, you do realize that antiparticles are different than antimatter right?
Electrons are particles inside atoms, atom = matter, but an electron by itself is not true matter.
The same is true for antiparticles. An antiproton is not true antimatter. Antimatter is the culmination of ALL counterparts of an atom. Try to grow a brain please.
@buffboynick "an electron by itself is not true matter." Now you're just playing with words. I've never heard of an electron not being thought of as true matter. It sounds like you have just realised your mistake and you're trying to talk your way out of it.
Actually (since I clearly know more about physics) I exposed your fallacy.
Physicists appear to be on the road to empirically proving full antimatter but the existence of antiparticles is NOT sufficient evidence.
So, I stand by my post and Disproving Evolution's post that antimatter is STILL technically hypothetical (especially in regards to it forming by natural processes).
Also, like Kaku says....if its there, then why isnt there more of it in our universe? Try to pay attention
In order for science to empirically prove something you have to OBSERVE it over and over and then document those observations showing why its correct.
Now, since I agree with Kaku.....that antimatter does exist. I would differ with the link above. However, some have made a good case that antimatter doesnt truly exist. You got schooled.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Mount Rushmore didnt design itself either." Let's apply the same idea to rag doll physics, how much of the code was written by humans?
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Maybe you can talk about "maths" again you neanderthal brain." I thought talking about how I write maths was a preoccupation of bbn, not you. Interesting fraud.
@evoTARDSareINSANE "I rather enjoy intellectually-PWNING you with basic facts (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)" When did you pawn me with the first law of thermodynamics retard?
Information does have to be written, but information is not needed for information to be written. If a pen drops, and just-so-happens (the key phrase) to "write", "I", or "any other letter", or "strokes", then, "I" is information, "any other letter" is useless, and "strokes" is nothing. Information must be perceived, it does not exist beyond the individuals experience, regardless of how divergent or common the experience is.
Evolution is like only reading the middle chapter of a book. There is or was a creator but it wasn't any God from some religion, chances are the creator can not fit inside his creation and we couldn't exist out side of it. Don't let the evidence of creation trick you into worshiping alien overlords, if God is omnipresent spirit he can work with our individual spiritual natures one on one. Only godless men would try to God it over people.
We need the programming manual, simply put. I'm tired of reverse engineering, hacking and probing and watching videos from people not having the manual - not to mention my body is falling apart from the trials and errors. "Fatal system error #880654, please reboot your body." (Too much coffee, need to sleep and eat something). I can't wait to get my perfect biobot girlfriend, though...
The is total nonsense. Francis Crick never had any doubt about natural evolution making the information content of DNA in extant organisms. In fact he repeatedly criticized certain astronomers such as Herman Bondi, who had proposed that living organisms might have had their origins in extrasolar systems . Crick proposed a credible theory of the origin of genetic code on earth, for which there has been strong experimental support. There is little mystery in it.
So what if DNA is code? I am a programmer, and i have personally made programs that are self replicating, mutating, and test for selection. It makes results better then the original. No matter what i start with, it is improved by the end into a working code. For the last part about there needing to be something to read it, scientists know how that came about, it's an argument from ignorance.
@reflect7 Ah, but you see, the program that did the task was one that started randomly generated, then evolved. I only programed the controller program, in real life the controller is the laws of physics. Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, ext.
@TheWordsNotSpoken Ah, you only programmed the controller program and let it run according to established laws of mathematics, physics, information...
@reflect7 So real life doesn't run according to laws of physics? All i did was program those laws of physics, basically synthesizing real life at a million times the speed. The actual program that was in this "environment" i never touched.
@TheWordsNotSpoken hes saying you had to be there to make the environmental laws and start the ball rolling. otherwise you would have an empty project and no code would be output. the computational work, which exists as a product of original code, which creates your end result, IS your creation... as well as everything it produces.
you cant honestly say programing physical laws isnt work. its not random that it happened. you did that, dont sell yourself short. the programer is the beginning.
@MonoAoV The argument is that DNA holds information that could only be mad by intelligence. I showed that to be false, if you assume that is "information" you must also assume the end product of my code was. So if may code was just a representation of the environment we know to exist, then the environment should also be able to make "information" without intelligence, assuming those laws already exist.
I programed shuffling of genes when matting, that happens in real life.
i programed natural selection, that happens in life.
I programed mutation, that happens in life.
That is all I programed, besides a way to see the product, if these make "information" from a random input in a simulation, then they should be able to in real life. I tried it, it worked.
@TheWordsNotSpoken ok, im gonna say your wrong cuz i cant do what you did so i cant talk on that level. however if life in your environment depends greatly on very specific tuning of the environment (which is the work you consciously had to do) than the same tuning of the universal environment could have been the work of a higher consciousness.
the environment itself holds information that allows computation of data to formulate reality, much like the code used to view your end result.
@MonoAoV0 "ok, im gonna say your wrong cuz i cant do what you did so i cant talk on that level."
What you are going to say i am wrong because you don't understand? Sorry but truth isn't reliant on your understanding.
"depends greatly on very specific tuning of the environment"
Sorry, it doesn't. Anything that self replicates imperfectly would make a seemingly designed outcome, assuming there is something that helps it replicate, or hurts it replicate.
@TheWordsNotSpoken ok we have a couple misunderstandings. first, youre not wrong, sorry for the typo. second, the tuning of the environment that i was talking about isnt the earth, its the universal laws of nature. imagine trying to make a self replicating program without first setting up the environment for it to replicate in. in the same way astrophysics recognizes 20-30 variables set within a 1% thresh hold. the power of gravity, the speed of light, ect.. these direct energy/matter into life.
@MonoAoV I recognized my mistake after i typed it, i had responded before you had corrected the wrong statement. Now, if you are using the fine tuning argument the first is abandoned correct? This is the "universal constants mean the universe is fine tuned for life" argument right? If so, this is easily refuted, just try to think of a situation were you do not observe the universes to be fine tuned. Obviously you can't nothing would be there to observe it.
@MonoAoV Natural selection has no fine tuning at all, no matter what environment you are in, if it is imperfect for replication, there is natural selection. Mutation, again, unless the replication is perfect, there will be mistakes causing extra, or different, pieces or functions of the replicating object.Shuffling of genes, ok, that was designed,i'll take it out, it still works. Meiosis was an early trait, but mitosis would still work, meiosis evolved through mitosis. not really designed now.
we should also keep in mind that this question has been around for a while, computer simulations are based only on what we currently think. if our paradigm were to shift you might end up with a simulation that looks remarkably similar while being based on entirely different code. of course that is an assumption, but id rather assume there is much more to learn than assume we know everything.
+all theories of life discuss changes and improvements but never the beginning, as if its not important.
@MonoAoV Sorry for cutting you off, and there are theories about the beginning, the most prominent is abiogenisis. This video explains it.
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
yes, our ideas change, but by less each time, we are getting closer. take the shape of the earth from flat to round to spheroid. I think you would agree that round is closer then flat, not equally wrong, but both wrong.
@MonoAoV Past that we have no idea if a universe could be otherwise, and (assuming it IS random), one of the 4 forces(weak nuclear force) is not needed. If that wasn't enough 25% of universes create stars.
@MonoAoV It is hard to imagine this is fine tuned for life, being generous it turns out that .0000000000000000000000000000000000073% of the universe is habitable, and if you mean only our planet is fine tuned then 0.46% of that is habitable, plus with so many planets the odds in favor of life are astronomical. The same goes for the universes, only instead of other planets, other universes in the multiverse, or a previous cycle in this one.
@TheWordsNotSpoken "One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life. Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life." - Louis J. Clavelli - High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
@MonoAoV Ok, even given that, there are a good # of refutations i listed that still work perfectly fine, also keep in mind life may be able to form in ways we do not or cannot imagine.
@TheWordsNotSpoken even if you were to have a foundation (universal laws), materials (gas, minerals, water), and instructions (DNA), you still need a builder. for your program you are the builder. your program is a model for life in this universe. if your model is accurate than what i say is true. if your model is inaccurate... well, need i say more?
"life may be able to form in ways we do not or cannot imagine."
start with fact. all known life has been observed to come from preexisting life.
Why? couldn't natural means be sufficient? I don't know how the laws were set, i just see no reason a god had to do it. "all known life has been observed to come from preexisting life." You are reverting back to abiogenesis. I do not know for certain how life started, there are many hypotheses that are still being tested, but just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it never happened. we haven't seen Pluto complete an orbit, does that mean it hasn't?
@TheWordsNotSpoken its hard to keep breaking this down when its already very basic. the original topic was your computer program, so ill stick to that. you are an intelligent being, you chose to produce an intelligent work. you take on the position of "designer". original code, or outsourced, you are the one bring it together for a common goal. due to the fact the replication/mutation would not have happened without all code in place we can deduce that placement to be of intent. divine intent.
@MonoAoV The original claim was that the DNA was designed because it contained "information" but now it has changed to the environment being designed because it allows it. This is what we call moving the goal posts. I was replicating what we know to be true. Just because i artificially replicated the environment doesn't mean that is how the original environment was made. Then this basically reduces to the fine tuning argument, "the environment allows life thus god." i refuted that.
@TheWordsNotSpoken you cant design life without first designing a living environment. you dont just build, you lay foundation first. i thought it obvious that if there were a designer for the foundation, there is a designer for the product, which it was made for. i can not trust that something came from nothing, and inorganic mutated into organic, without proof. thats preposterous. abiogenesis has no proof or solid science to back up its claims. your pluto argument it infantile. im shocked.
@TheWordsNotSpoken lets go big picture... lets say there were a lab experiment that could create life from basic materials (note all such experiments have failed to reconstruct even a singe hair). evolution still cant explain the fossil record lacking the expected number of transitional species, aboriginal knowledge of dinosaurs without paleontological studies, and synchronized ancient world myths/teachings without communication, contact or common language. evolution is a paradigm not a science.
@MonoAoV "a singe hair" um... hairs aren't living. we are now back on abiogenisis. What we expect from the experiments is just the building blocks of life, not life itself, that is a long process and we never claimed the experiments would make life, even if they did they would be much more basic then any life we know.
I don't know why you brought ancient teachings into this, but there are plenty of transitional forms, the only way to think there are few, is to not look, or be misinformed.
@TheWordsNotSpoken im sorry my friend, you are mistaken. you offer no solid theory as to why dna is here on earth. im done responding as this conversation makes me uneasy. not due to the subject or the tone, only because there is too much speak about things that remain unknown. if you do not wish to see the points i have made or the points the video has made then i urge you to find a better place to spend your time. i dont have the answers you want. have a good life, keep an open mind. much love
@MonoAoV Our engagement: He makes a video saying that natural forces cannot make information I prove that wrong You say that the forces could not have come about by chance I refute that You point out we don't know how life could start I show possible natural means and admit we don't know You try to use that as proof you're right Sorry that's god of the gaps You assert that everything needs a builder I ask for proof this is so. Please show me the points that i haven't seen i want to know
@TheWordsNotSpoken i appreciate your sincerity, i too am seeking. i dont know either. i feel i havnt quite seen your refute eye to eye. it is my past knowledge and current learning that point me away from evolution and abiogenesis. abiogenesis has major flaws and i admit i looked for them to see both sides of the theory. i have a problem with lack of physical evidence in the lab and the fossil record. we should see transitional proteins by the trillions. no such proteins have surfaced. so i pray
@MonoAoV with the current progress in science i can see how you would disbelieve in abiogenisis, it is not yet proven, and though it is promising it is still just a collection of hypothesis. Evolution, on the other hand, is observed to be true, there is a mountain of evidence for it, I can send some of it t you if you would like. It is possible that evolution was started, or even controlled by god, but there is no doubt that it happens.
@TheWordsNotSpoken watched the vid, very interesting. i guess the confusion comes from the difference between evolution fact and evolution theory. i see those organisms in the video as adaptations and not mutations as they are only changing to suit their environment. your thoughts?
@MonoAoV Evolution is a theory in the way germ theory is a theory. It is supported by all evidence and rejected by none, modern biology only makes sense in light of it. All evolution is, is adapting to the environment in witch you life, over successive generations. That is evolution. Speciation via evolution happens when these changes add up so much that the DNA of the two creatures are no longer compatible and they cannot reproduce successfully.
@TheWordsNotSpoken would i be acturate to say this is then, a demonstration of micro evolution, as all organisms are still able to reproduce with each other?
@MonoAoV in the scientific community there is no separation between micro and macro evolution, because there is no difference. Macro is just continued micro. This has been show with fossils, DNA, bacteria, etc.. If we were trying to show speciation we would have to add to the code a feature to determine this, and that s getting terribly close to subjective. A significant rise in complexity is sufficient.
@TheWordsNotSpoken I think what reflect7 is trying to say is, if in real life the controller is the laws of physics, and if you build the controller, who then built the laws of physics? Same principle. :)
@therockstar17 Why would it have to be a who? We have no idea how the Laws of physics came to be, but i see no reason why it should be a who, or why that who should be god. My program was just to replicate what we know to exist in order to run a scientific experiment in a faster way. It successfully proved that, given the environment we know to exist, and enough time, "information" will form from "non-information". It was not trying to show anything about the origins of the laws of physics.
I doubt you are a programmer. you do not seem to know what you are talking about. I am a programmer, for 17 years I wrote in basic, then moved to learn wireless and tele-communication protocols and coding, and if you compare the tech of reading a n RFID to holding a cup of water, you would kill urself before stating anything that is Atheistic in its grammar.
@balamanti2 I do know what i am talking about, i am (or was 7 months ago) talking about a program i made that simulated "information" generation through evolution.
Please correct me if i'm wrong , but i do believe i wasn't arguing for anything "Atheistic" here. Finally, i don't see how " comparing the tech of reading a n RFID to holding a cup of water" would cause "you to kill urself before stating anything that is Atheistic in its grammar". Please clarify.
wrong answer , you do not say things are complicated.
You say comparing the technology of high end devices, with biological devices and capabilities is an obvious evidence for a higher realm that explains our creation.
Another example for your simple mind is: a tree can not know if cars pass by, a tree can feel the sun, and water underneath, why would you assume that you are the high end of all creation?
@balamanti2 You make no sense. We don't need "A higher realm to explain our creation" since our "realm" explains our creation just fine. You have offered me no evidence of any "higher realm" besides saying it's obvious from "comparing the technology of high end devices, with biological devices and capabilities". I do not draw that conclusion from looking at your presented evidence, i only see that one is more complex. What else do you see?
:-D well you say complex and i said it is wrong grammar. the biological devices and machinery all point to higher realm, the stupid thing is to try to sound serious about it as if u seriously believe that has came about by chance + physical laws... this is crazy imagine yourself driving a car with all the different moves you learn and save in your brain, happed by chance+physical laws itself over miilions of yrs, serious now ur crazy
@balamanti2 Besides the fact that it can let's just assume it can't for a second. You are now basically saying that B is true because A is false without dealing with C-Z. That is called an argument from ignorance or a false dichotomy depending on how you word it.
Looks like I had to school the boy in Physics yet again. Tsk, tsk
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE So who is going to school you in biology? Tsk, tsk.
lethalsub 1 month ago
We can see the handiwork of God in all things. Praise God for great are His ways.
AtheistSpanker 2 months ago
Evolutionists cant face reality. They are so brainwashed with evo-dogma that they cant see the obvious truth right in front of their face.
That racist hack, Charles Darwin, really did a number on the world with his Masonic-based disinfo theory. Thanks Charlie!!! If the discovery of DNA had happened during Darwin's time then his theory would have been scoffed at by the vast majority.
DisprovingEvolution 2 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution Why is the discrete nature of DNA so significant retard?
lethalsub 2 months ago
@lethalsub
Who "designs" computer chips?
I just answered your question with a question.
DisprovingEvolution 2 months ago
@DisprovingEvolution That hasn't answered my question, because you haven't understood it, retard. Do you know what discrete means?
lethalsub 2 months ago
@lethalsub
What kind of "special ed" idiot are you?
What kind of moronic question is that? Your wording of that question is horrendous
Discrete is an adjective used to describe things like affairs, secret activity, and things meant to keep hush about
There's nothing discrete about DNA when its being viewed under an electron microscope. Its essentially binary code for biological machines. DNA is the programming___Francis Collins (Language of God)
Although I differ with him on some stuff
buffboynick 2 months ago
@buffboynick "Discrete is an adjective used to describe things like affairs, secret activity, and things meant to keep hush about" There is another meaning of discrete, I suggest you look it up retard. Considering you have a degree in physics you should have come across this distinction.
lethalsub 2 months ago
@lethalsub
I also have a degree in "Troll-Spotting" and you sir, are an ignorant trolling buffoon.
Talking to you is like talking to an amoeba.
buffboynick 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "I also have a degree in "Troll-Spotting" and you sir, are an ignorant trolling buffoon." Well, ignorant people have trouble telling the difference between discreet and discrete, retard.
Talking to you is like talking to a, er, retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
DNA didnt design itself, just as a computer chip and Binary Code didnt design itself either.
Mount Rushmore didnt design itself either.
Design (art, music, books, architecture, sculpture, space shuttle, jets, computers, lasers, machines, and biological machines aka ALL LIFE) demands a designer. Plain and simple.
evoTARDSareINSANE 2 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Design (art, music, books, architecture, sculpture, space shuttle, jets, computers, lasers, machines, and biological machines aka ALL LIFE) demands a designer. Plain and simple." So, according to you, if you find a piece of driftwood and you say 'this driftwood is a piece of art', you are conferring the status of art object onto the piece of wood, even though you didn't design it.
Did Mandelbrot design the Mandelbrot set, retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
Using your idiotic "driftwood" as an example.....
The atoms and molecules that make up a piece of wood (giving it physicality : length, width, depth) didnt magically make themselves. Understand tard?
Everything (except energy) has a cause and effect, a beginning and an end.
Atoms, Molecules, DNA, and even hypothetical "anti-matter" had to be made. The only thing science has proven to be eternal is energy.
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Using your idiotic "driftwood" as an example....." That example comes from George Dickie, a noted philosopher of aesthetics.
"The atoms and molecules that make up a piece of wood (giving it physicality : length, width, depth) didnt magically make themselves. Understand tard?" I was merely trying to make the point that using art objects as examples of design is unsuitable precisely for that reason. If you referred to an art object as an artefact, that wouldn't be a problem.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "hypothetical "anti-matter"" Are you sure anti matter is hypothetical retard?
lol
lethalsub 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Everything (except energy) has a cause and effect, a beginning and an end." What about quantum physics retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Energy is the reason for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it just takes another form. Its proven its eternal and doesnt need atoms to exist.
Energy is the ONLY thing which was never "designed". It simply exists. Matter and the 4 Fundamental Forces cannot say the same. Since they didnt exist until the "Big Bang". These are called FACTS.
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE Why are you telling me about the first law of thermodynamics? I wouldn't ask a retard who thinks anti-matter is hypothetical, FACT.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
You apparently are less knowledgable about Physics then you are of Biology.
Anti-Matter has never been officially proven. There is some good evidence for it, but (just like Dark Energy) its technically labeled "hypothetical"
Also, the Big Bang itself is still labeled as hypothetical. I do believe there is some truth in the Big Bang concept though (its just not a complete theory yet)
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
Good job pwning lethal-troll. That was almost painful watching him get spanked so publicly. Ouch!
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution You won't own me until I am provided with a source that says anti-matter is hypothetical.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
The video link below from Physicist Michio Kaku (yep, he is a Physicist, unlike you) will educate you on the search for hypothetical "antimatter"
/watch?v=Oo8a9FCgnfk
Antimatter most likely exists, but ONLY empirical evidence can confirm its existence. By the way, if it does exist....the government would be very interested in weaponizing it for an "antimatter bomb"
Many things in Physics is "hypothetical". Hence the title "theoretical physicist" Michio Kaku.
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisprovingEvolution Er, retard, this question is for etai, why are you answering for him, eh?
"Antimatter most likely exists, but ONLY empirical evidence can confirm its existence." I have watched the first 30 seconds of this video, and Michio Kaku mentions TWO examples of its existence. Are you really that fucking retarded?
OWNED LIKE A BITCH.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution Spoke too soon, didn't you coward.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
He just PWNED you with a video from Michio Kaku.
Looks like you're the one that "spoke too soon"
Antimatter is still hypothetical (like the Big Bang). Try watching the video.
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE send a comment to DE and YOU answer, interesting?
I watched the video again, where does he say anti-matter is hypothetical? He does give three examples of its existence. Didn't you notice that retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
And here is another link by CERN....
cem.msu.edu/~cem181fp/antimatter/antimatter.html
and no, Kaku (and most physicists) believe anti-matter exists, but they dont know it for a fact. Its still in its hypothetical phase of physics understanding. Kaku gives evidence for its existence, but no empirical evidence. Did you even watch the video?
They still dont know how this supposed antimatter even works and why they cant find more of it. You're acting as if its proven, like gravity.
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Antimatter is still hypothetical (like the Big Bang). Try watching the video." I already have, try learning some physics retard.
Carl Anderson won the Nobel prize for physics because he found a positron.
Do you still think I've been owned fraud?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Yes, you clearly got owned.
You think antimatter is 100% confirmed, which it is not.
Do you think the Big Bang is 100% confirmed as well? You need to watch some Alex Collier lol
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution This is from the website you gave me: "Fermilab is the largest producer of antimatter today, being able to produce roughly 60 billion antiprotons per hour." Why are you giving me evidence that goes against what you are saying?
Yes, you clearly got owned.
"Do you think the Big Bang is 100% confirmed as well? You need to watch some Alex Collier lol" That's the retard who thinks that electrons are attracted to each other.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
I just showed up here to watch you get publicly SPANKED!
Btw, did you not read the title of Kaku's video "the SEARCH for Antimatter"?
Key word, "search". My mates are owning you rather thoroughly. Tsky McTsk Tsk lol
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick Read the comment above yours retard.
BTW What are you doing here etai?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Actually the links and video provide show evidence for antimatter but it remains "theoretical and hypothetical" since antimatter is not physical.
Dark Energy is also hypothetical (although it most likely exists)
The Cern link discusses antimatter's hypothetical nature right at the top. Nice "cherry picking". Tsky McTsk!
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Nice "cherry picking". Tsky McTsk!" It sounds like you are cherry picking. Kaku gave an example of its existence, scientists know it exists. The Kaku video and the CERN link discuss why there is so little observable anti matter in the universe. They don't discuss the hypothetical nature of anti-matter per se, because we already have empirical evidence of it. Try not to get confused retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
No, there is evidence for the existence of antiparticles.
Full Antimatter is a different story.
What they are generating are antiparticles. Learn to accept being PWNED.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Learn to accept being PWNED." It sounds like you can't accept being pawned, you didn't know it existed before I told you, and you try to worm your way out by splitting hairs. What a Coward.
A single proton is essentially the same as a positive hydrogen ion. Are you saying that isn't matter, retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Matter = atoms
Atoms = contain protons, electrons, neutrons
Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)
Try to keep up with me PWNING you.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Actually (since I clearly know more about physics) I exposed your fallacy." Now you say: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)"
From wikipedia's antineutron page: "The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered." Retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Did you not read the link below tard?
There is science both pro and con (concerning the existence of antimatter)
The link below says its disproven antimatter conclusively.....
natscience(dot)com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/28115/Anti-matter-disproven-conclusively
Also, do you have a point or are you just trolling again? I already said I believe both anitmatter and dark energy exist. They arent yet 100% proven yet. Understand tard?
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Also, do you have a point or are you just trolling again?" The same point I've been making for over six months fraud. Don't go lying about your credentials. Understand tard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
I refuted you on all points.
The term antineutron is not a true antiparticle because you cant have an opposite charge for something with no charge.
They call it antineutron in order to separate it from a typical neutron particle. Nothing can be "anti neutral"
Explain to us all how something that is truly "neutral" can have a counterpart? The answer....it cant. Antineutron is an oxymoron. Also, I debunked your claim on anitmatter atoms being empirically proven. Understand TARD?
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Explain to us all how something that is truly "neutral" can have a counterpart? The answer....it cant. Antineutron is an oxymoron." Well the theory states that when a particle comes into contact with its antiparticle, they annihilate each other, releasing energy. That wouldn't happen with two neutrons, or two anti-neutrons.
Understand FRAUD?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick " Also, I debunked your claim on anitmatter atoms being empirically proven." Well, retard, you didn't.
Again, wikipedia anti-hydrogen page: "In 1995, the first antihydrogen was produced by a team of researchers under the lead of Walter Oelert at the CERN laboratory in Geneva."
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
And also (since you like using Wikipedia) here is a quote from the first sentence of the Antimatter page on Wikipedia.....
"In particle physics, antimatter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to matter, where antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles"
Notice the word "concept"???
Antimatter has a LONG way to go before it reaches the official status of "confirmed". Hard to prove something so hard to find!!
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick Why don't you try reading the whole article, then you can finally learn some real science.
Do you still have a physics degree? Or is that starting to seem like a bad idea?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
"In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment.The antihydrogen atoms created during PS210 and subsequent experiments (at both CERN and Fermilab) were extremely energetic ("hot") and were not well suited to study."
You conveniently left out the last part ^ "not suitable to study"
You do realize that empirical data requires numerous tests right? PWNED like a TARD
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "On April 26, 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes). This was longer than neutral antimatter had ever been trapped before." You didn't read on did you retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
So you're stating that 17 minutes of testing is "empirical proof"?
Wow, no wonder you cant understand the scientific method, hahahaah!!!
Btw.....Alex Collier stated that antimatter does exist, so that means it does. However....Earth scientists have not empirically proven it yet.
17 minutes of testing, that's almost as long as you stayed in a Physics class lol
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "So you're stating that 17 minutes of testing is "empirical proof"?" Er, what tests were they doing?
"Wow, no wonder you cant understand the scientific method, hahahaah!!!" Um, this is coming from someone who thought that neutrons don't have anti-matter counterparts.
Retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
If I had 17 minutes of testing on Intelligent Design theory......would you say I had "empirical proof"?
See your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty tard?
PWNED!!
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "See your hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty tard?" Be careful what you say, or I'll say: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)" Retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
I stated the term "antineutron" is not accurate (since you cant have a counterpart to something that is neutral)
A better term would be alternate neutron. The idea of an "antineutron" is a misnomer.
As for "17 minutes of data"....the supposed antimatter atoms they trapped didnt exist long enough to be studied "empirically". Which is why further testing needed for confirmation
I need more then 17 minutes of proof before I say "non hypothetical" because UNLIKE YOU, I have a degree
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "As for "17 minutes of data"....the supposed antimatter atoms they trapped didnt exist long enough to be studied "empirically"." Where does it say this retard?
"I stated the term "antineutron" is not accurate (since you cant have a counterpart to something that is neutral)" Er, yes you can, that's just a misunderstanding of the words retard.
"I need more then 17 minutes of proof before I say "non hypothetical" because UNLIKE YOU, I have a degree" No, you don't retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Your circular reasoning fails again.
Its clear you have no point in this discussion since you're trying to convince me "antimatter" exists when I already know it does (thanks to Alex Collier)
Tell us all why you believe in Core, Mantle, Crust Theory?
Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Its clear you have no point in this discussion since you're trying to convince me "antimatter" exists when I already know it does (thanks to Alex Collier)" No, same point I made before, DON"T LIE ABOUT YOUR CREDENTIALS.
lethalsub 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Tell us all why you believe in Core, Mantle, Crust Theory?
Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)" Now you're just changing the subject retard. They have compared the average density of the earth's crust with that of the earth overall. The inner layers are considerably denser than the outer layers, so the earth being filled with air is unlikely.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical" Who decides this retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Provide empirical evidence. (this should be interesting, since none exists)" Well, I provided some for you, why didn't you notice it before retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
No you didnt.
The deepest depth drilled into the Crust was the Soviet Kola Superborehole Project which ONLY drilled 7.6 Miles down__FACT.
Also, seismic readings show the Earth vibrates like a Bell.
Plus the satellite images of the pole have holes in them (rather funny NASA can see galaxies light years away but cant produce a clear image of the Poles). No empirical data in Inner Earth exists. Also, in HET....the crust is 800 miles thick, not 100% hollow.
Tsky, Mc Tsk Tsk tard!
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Also, in HET....the crust is 800 miles thick, not 100% hollow." Just to clarify, HET is not a scientific theory, retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical"" Er, retard, you get trans uranic elements with half lives that are smaller than a billionth of a second, but you need 17 minutes for anti-matter. Learn some physics retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
It appears that BBN has PWNED you with his physics understanding. Tsk, tsk
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DisprovingEvolution It appears you have multiple personality disorder. Get some help.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
I have empirical evidence you're a tard, and I accumulated MUCH MORE than 17 minutes of data on it.
If Alex Collier told you that he had 17 minutes of data confirming the Earth is Hollow than would you believe that.
Btw...I already know antimatter exists (Collier stated it in a lecture in the 90's, before CERN)
However, if you had a functioning brain, you'd want more than 17 mins of data on something before you say its not hypothetical
Dark matter/dark energy = also hypothetical
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "I have empirical evidence you're a tard, and I accumulated MUCH MORE than 17 minutes of data on it." Where is it retard?
"Btw...I already know antimatter exists (Collier stated it in a lecture in the 90's, before CERN)" The existence of anti matter was confirmed in 1932.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "I have empirical evidence you're a tard, and I accumulated MUCH MORE than 17 minutes of data on it." Come on then fraud, where is it?
"If Alex Collier told you that he had 17 minutes of data confirming the Earth is Hollow than would you believe that." If Collier the retard told me that the current british monarch was Queen Elizabeth II, I wouldn't believe him.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick
I love when you destroy Lethal Troll with cold hard facts!!
Excellent
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Antimatter is on the verge of being empirically proven in the future.
But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical"
Btw, where Gravity comes from hasnt even been "empirically proven" yet. Just to spank you even further with the scientific method.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "But until its studied for longer than 17 minutes, its remains "hypothetical"" OK mr physicist, how long do they have to be studied so as to be considered non-hypothetical?
Just to spank you even further with the scientific method, where does it say that this trapping of antihydrogen for 1000s gave unreliable data? Arguing over the length of time of 1000s shows you are splitting hairs again.
Do you still think that neutrons don't have anti-matter counterparts, retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Btw, where Gravity comes from hasnt even been "empirically proven" yet." Provide me with a source retard.
Just to skull fuck you even further with the scientific method that you should know about.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Some say Gravity comes from gravitons emitted from the 4th/5th dimension.
Some say Gravity comes from gravitons emitted from stars.
Some say Gravity comes strictly from objects of great mass.
Even PHD Physicists debate this!!! There is empirical evidence gravity exists, but NOT empirical data showing WHERE it comes from.
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Some say Gravity comes from gravitons emitted from the 4th/5th dimension.
Some say Gravity comes from gravitons emitted from stars.
Some say Gravity comes strictly from objects of great mass."
Provide me with a source for all three hypotheses, fraudulent coward.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Hard to prove something so hard to find!!" What, like your knowledge of physics?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Not only did I school you on antimatter and the scientific method.....but I successfully proved you're intellectually UNable to use Wikipedia LOL.
A site which 5 years olds can use.
Empirical data requires consistent testing. Also, like I said....I believe antimatter does exist and will one day be confirmed through numerous tests.
So what is your point? That you're a tard? If so, you successfully proved you are one.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Take from Wikipedia in the Origin and Asymmetry section of the Antimatter article....
"Almost all matter observable from the Earth seems to be made of matter rather than antimatter. If antimatter-dominated regions of space existed, the gamma rays produced in annihilation reactions along the boundary between matter and antimatter regions would be detectable."
Can you read Wikipedia particles thoroughly or only small "cherry picked" sections?
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "Can you read Wikipedia particles thoroughly or only small "cherry picked" sections?" Hypocrite.
Read the whole article, retard. What you are referring to is the lack of large amounts of anti-matter in the observable universe, not to the lack of evidence of anti-matter's existence.
Understand FRAUD?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Because what they claimed was "antimatter" didnt exist long enough to be empirically studied and confirmed.
They are working on that now.
Repeated tests and observation are needed to empirically prove something. Understand how the scientific method works fraud?
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Understand how the scientific method works fraud?" Be careful who you call a fraud cunt. I bet you're learning more about science than you have in the past 5 years, just by getting fucked off by me.
And you're still splitting hairs.
lethalsub 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick Just to remind you: "Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)" Like I said fraud, don't lie about your credentials.
Understand fraud?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@buffboynick From wikipedia's anti-matter page: "In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms by implementing the SLAC/Fermilab concept during the PS210 experiment."
Would that satisfy you're definition of anti-matter retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
And this science link states Antimatter was disproven conclusively.....
natscience(dot)com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/28115/Anti-matter-disproven-conclusively
So whose "science" should we listen to TARD?
buffboynick 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "And this science link states Antimatter was disproven conclusively....." That is a thread retard.
"So whose "science" should we listen to TARD?" Well, my understanding is better than yours, wouldn't you agree?
lethalsub 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buffboynick "Matter = atoms
Atoms = contain protons, electrons, neutrons
Antimatter = would have to contain antiprotons, anti-electrons, and neutrons (they are neutral so no theoretical counterpart could exist)"
And you expect me to believe that you have a degree in physics fraud?
Try to keep up with me PWNING you.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Also tard, you do realize that antiparticles are different than antimatter right?
Electrons are particles inside atoms, atom = matter, but an electron by itself is not true matter.
The same is true for antiparticles. An antiproton is not true antimatter. Antimatter is the culmination of ALL counterparts of an atom. Try to grow a brain please.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@buffboynick "an electron by itself is not true matter." Now you're just playing with words. I've never heard of an electron not being thought of as true matter. It sounds like you have just realised your mistake and you're trying to talk your way out of it.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Actually (since I clearly know more about physics) I exposed your fallacy.
Physicists appear to be on the road to empirically proving full antimatter but the existence of antiparticles is NOT sufficient evidence.
So, I stand by my post and Disproving Evolution's post that antimatter is STILL technically hypothetical (especially in regards to it forming by natural processes).
Also, like Kaku says....if its there, then why isnt there more of it in our universe? Try to pay attention
buffboynick 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Also, the link below says true antimatter doesnt exist at all......
intelligentdesigntheory.info/antimatter-big-bang-black-holes.html
In order for science to empirically prove something you have to OBSERVE it over and over and then document those observations showing why its correct.
Now, since I agree with Kaku.....that antimatter does exist. I would differ with the link above. However, some have made a good case that antimatter doesnt truly exist. You got schooled.
buffboynick 1 month ago
@lethalsub
/watch?v=Oo8a9FCgnfk
Epic PWNAGE. Take note, my "maths" beats yours lol.
DisprovingEvolution 1 month ago
@DisprovingEvolution You just pawned yourself, and your two alter-egos.
"Take note, my "maths" beats yours lol." Are you a mathematician then retard?
PS Why did you send me the same link again retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Mount Rushmore didnt design itself either." Let's apply the same idea to rag doll physics, how much of the code was written by humans?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
I rather enjoy intellectually-PWNING you with basic facts (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)
Maybe you can talk about "maths" again you neanderthal brain.
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Maybe you can talk about "maths" again you neanderthal brain." I thought talking about how I write maths was a preoccupation of bbn, not you. Interesting fraud.
lethalsub 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE "I rather enjoy intellectually-PWNING you with basic facts (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)" When did you pawn me with the first law of thermodynamics retard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE "I rather enjoy intellectually-PWNING you with basic facts (like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics)" But, you said earlier...
"Atoms, Molecules, DNA, and even hypothetical "anti-matter" had to be made." Ha, I suggest you check your 'basic' facts. Understand tard?
lethalsub 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE 'hypothetical "anti-matter"' lol. PAWNED retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
@lethalsub
Anti-matter is still technically considered "hypothetical"
Although, I do believe it exists. As well as dark energy and dark matter.
evoTARDSareINSANE 1 month ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Anti-matter is still technically considered "hypothetical"" Provide me with a source retard.
lethalsub 1 month ago
Ouch, evolutionary theory takes it in the arse again!! Good video
evoTARDSareINSANE 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evoTARDSareINSANE "Ouch, evolutionary theory takes it in the arse again!!" Does buffboynick do you up the arse bitch?
lethalsub 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC ATGC
FARIAatheBangladeshi 2 months ago
Pcs got DNA? Rofl, just kidin
TheFan630 3 months ago
Information does have to be written, but information is not needed for information to be written. If a pen drops, and just-so-happens (the key phrase) to "write", "I", or "any other letter", or "strokes", then, "I" is information, "any other letter" is useless, and "strokes" is nothing. Information must be perceived, it does not exist beyond the individuals experience, regardless of how divergent or common the experience is.
Also, this guy, a lawyer? Why is he here?
cpmc1 4 months ago
umm... that DNA can come about through natural processes...
TheWordsNotSpoken 5 months ago
1 and 2 is not binary code, right ?(2:25) .... Hate these kind of people, who are talking, gesturing and they tell nothing....
aoshijou 7 months ago
actually it's a trinary code based on a base 4 system, triplet codons
spindlegrinder 7 months ago
Evolution is like only reading the middle chapter of a book. There is or was a creator but it wasn't any God from some religion, chances are the creator can not fit inside his creation and we couldn't exist out side of it. Don't let the evidence of creation trick you into worshiping alien overlords, if God is omnipresent spirit he can work with our individual spiritual natures one on one. Only godless men would try to God it over people.
Php48 9 months ago
We need the programming manual, simply put. I'm tired of reverse engineering, hacking and probing and watching videos from people not having the manual - not to mention my body is falling apart from the trials and errors. "Fatal system error #880654, please reboot your body." (Too much coffee, need to sleep and eat something). I can't wait to get my perfect biobot girlfriend, though...
elektron2kim 10 months ago
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!! What a moron!!
mrKZ6090 10 months ago
The is total nonsense. Francis Crick never had any doubt about natural evolution making the information content of DNA in extant organisms. In fact he repeatedly criticized certain astronomers such as Herman Bondi, who had proposed that living organisms might have had their origins in extrasolar systems . Crick proposed a credible theory of the origin of genetic code on earth, for which there has been strong experimental support. There is little mystery in it.
Doctorbabaguy 11 months ago
reflect7 you are as dumb and fraud as you look.oyu havent provided any true evidence as to wherther dna computers exist at all.
apostolisxa 1 year ago
So what if DNA is code? I am a programmer, and i have personally made programs that are self replicating, mutating, and test for selection. It makes results better then the original. No matter what i start with, it is improved by the end into a working code. For the last part about there needing to be something to read it, scientists know how that came about, it's an argument from ignorance.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken Exactly my point -- You are a programmer... You made the program...
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 Ah, but you see, the program that did the task was one that started randomly generated, then evolved. I only programed the controller program, in real life the controller is the laws of physics. Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, ext.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken Ah, you only programmed the controller program and let it run according to established laws of mathematics, physics, information...
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 So real life doesn't run according to laws of physics? All i did was program those laws of physics, basically synthesizing real life at a million times the speed. The actual program that was in this "environment" i never touched.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken hes saying you had to be there to make the environmental laws and start the ball rolling. otherwise you would have an empty project and no code would be output. the computational work, which exists as a product of original code, which creates your end result, IS your creation... as well as everything it produces.
you cant honestly say programing physical laws isnt work. its not random that it happened. you did that, dont sell yourself short. the programer is the beginning.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV The argument is that DNA holds information that could only be mad by intelligence. I showed that to be false, if you assume that is "information" you must also assume the end product of my code was. So if may code was just a representation of the environment we know to exist, then the environment should also be able to make "information" without intelligence, assuming those laws already exist.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@MonoAoV
I programed shuffling of genes when matting, that happens in real life.
i programed natural selection, that happens in life.
I programed mutation, that happens in life.
That is all I programed, besides a way to see the product, if these make "information" from a random input in a simulation, then they should be able to in real life. I tried it, it worked.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken ok, im gonna say your wrong cuz i cant do what you did so i cant talk on that level. however if life in your environment depends greatly on very specific tuning of the environment (which is the work you consciously had to do) than the same tuning of the universal environment could have been the work of a higher consciousness.
the environment itself holds information that allows computation of data to formulate reality, much like the code used to view your end result.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV0 "ok, im gonna say your wrong cuz i cant do what you did so i cant talk on that level."
What you are going to say i am wrong because you don't understand? Sorry but truth isn't reliant on your understanding.
"depends greatly on very specific tuning of the environment"
Sorry, it doesn't. Anything that self replicates imperfectly would make a seemingly designed outcome, assuming there is something that helps it replicate, or hurts it replicate.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken ok we have a couple misunderstandings. first, youre not wrong, sorry for the typo. second, the tuning of the environment that i was talking about isnt the earth, its the universal laws of nature. imagine trying to make a self replicating program without first setting up the environment for it to replicate in. in the same way astrophysics recognizes 20-30 variables set within a 1% thresh hold. the power of gravity, the speed of light, ect.. these direct energy/matter into life.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV I recognized my mistake after i typed it, i had responded before you had corrected the wrong statement. Now, if you are using the fine tuning argument the first is abandoned correct? This is the "universal constants mean the universe is fine tuned for life" argument right? If so, this is easily refuted, just try to think of a situation were you do not observe the universes to be fine tuned. Obviously you can't nothing would be there to observe it.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@MonoAoV Natural selection has no fine tuning at all, no matter what environment you are in, if it is imperfect for replication, there is natural selection. Mutation, again, unless the replication is perfect, there will be mistakes causing extra, or different, pieces or functions of the replicating object.Shuffling of genes, ok, that was designed,i'll take it out, it still works. Meiosis was an early trait, but mitosis would still work, meiosis evolved through mitosis. not really designed now.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
we should also keep in mind that this question has been around for a while, computer simulations are based only on what we currently think. if our paradigm were to shift you might end up with a simulation that looks remarkably similar while being based on entirely different code. of course that is an assumption, but id rather assume there is much more to learn than assume we know everything.
+all theories of life discuss changes and improvements but never the beginning, as if its not important.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV Sorry for cutting you off, and there are theories about the beginning, the most prominent is abiogenisis. This video explains it.
/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
yes, our ideas change, but by less each time, we are getting closer. take the shape of the earth from flat to round to spheroid. I think you would agree that round is closer then flat, not equally wrong, but both wrong.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@MonoAoV Past that we have no idea if a universe could be otherwise, and (assuming it IS random), one of the 4 forces(weak nuclear force) is not needed. If that wasn't enough 25% of universes create stars.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken sorry, i meant im NOT gonna say you are wrong.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV It is hard to imagine this is fine tuned for life, being generous it turns out that .0000000000000000000000000000000000073% of the universe is habitable, and if you mean only our planet is fine tuned then 0.46% of that is habitable, plus with so many planets the odds in favor of life are astronomical. The same goes for the universes, only instead of other planets, other universes in the multiverse, or a previous cycle in this one.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken "One of the most critical barriers is that a weakless universe is unlikely to produce enough oxygen to support life. Since oxygen is an essential element in both water, the universal solvent needed for life, and in each of the four bases forming the DNA code for known living beings, we strongly question the hypothesis that a universe without weak interactions could generate life." - Louis J. Clavelli - High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
'Problems in a weakless universe'
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV Ok, even given that, there are a good # of refutations i listed that still work perfectly fine, also keep in mind life may be able to form in ways we do not or cannot imagine.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken even if you were to have a foundation (universal laws), materials (gas, minerals, water), and instructions (DNA), you still need a builder. for your program you are the builder. your program is a model for life in this universe. if your model is accurate than what i say is true. if your model is inaccurate... well, need i say more?
"life may be able to form in ways we do not or cannot imagine."
start with fact. all known life has been observed to come from preexisting life.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV "you still need a builder."
Why? couldn't natural means be sufficient? I don't know how the laws were set, i just see no reason a god had to do it. "all known life has been observed to come from preexisting life." You are reverting back to abiogenesis. I do not know for certain how life started, there are many hypotheses that are still being tested, but just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it never happened. we haven't seen Pluto complete an orbit, does that mean it hasn't?
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken its hard to keep breaking this down when its already very basic. the original topic was your computer program, so ill stick to that. you are an intelligent being, you chose to produce an intelligent work. you take on the position of "designer". original code, or outsourced, you are the one bring it together for a common goal. due to the fact the replication/mutation would not have happened without all code in place we can deduce that placement to be of intent. divine intent.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV The original claim was that the DNA was designed because it contained "information" but now it has changed to the environment being designed because it allows it. This is what we call moving the goal posts. I was replicating what we know to be true. Just because i artificially replicated the environment doesn't mean that is how the original environment was made. Then this basically reduces to the fine tuning argument, "the environment allows life thus god." i refuted that.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken you cant design life without first designing a living environment. you dont just build, you lay foundation first. i thought it obvious that if there were a designer for the foundation, there is a designer for the product, which it was made for. i can not trust that something came from nothing, and inorganic mutated into organic, without proof. thats preposterous. abiogenesis has no proof or solid science to back up its claims. your pluto argument it infantile. im shocked.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken lets go big picture... lets say there were a lab experiment that could create life from basic materials (note all such experiments have failed to reconstruct even a singe hair). evolution still cant explain the fossil record lacking the expected number of transitional species, aboriginal knowledge of dinosaurs without paleontological studies, and synchronized ancient world myths/teachings without communication, contact or common language. evolution is a paradigm not a science.
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV "a singe hair" um... hairs aren't living. we are now back on abiogenisis. What we expect from the experiments is just the building blocks of life, not life itself, that is a long process and we never claimed the experiments would make life, even if they did they would be much more basic then any life we know.
I don't know why you brought ancient teachings into this, but there are plenty of transitional forms, the only way to think there are few, is to not look, or be misinformed.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken im sorry my friend, you are mistaken. you offer no solid theory as to why dna is here on earth. im done responding as this conversation makes me uneasy. not due to the subject or the tone, only because there is too much speak about things that remain unknown. if you do not wish to see the points i have made or the points the video has made then i urge you to find a better place to spend your time. i dont have the answers you want. have a good life, keep an open mind. much love
MonoAoV 1 year ago
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken i appreciate your sincerity, i too am seeking. i dont know either. i feel i havnt quite seen your refute eye to eye. it is my past knowledge and current learning that point me away from evolution and abiogenesis. abiogenesis has major flaws and i admit i looked for them to see both sides of the theory. i have a problem with lack of physical evidence in the lab and the fossil record. we should see transitional proteins by the trillions. no such proteins have surfaced. so i pray
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV with the current progress in science i can see how you would disbelieve in abiogenisis, it is not yet proven, and though it is promising it is still just a collection of hypothesis. Evolution, on the other hand, is observed to be true, there is a mountain of evidence for it, I can send some of it t you if you would like. It is possible that evolution was started, or even controlled by god, but there is no doubt that it happens.
A program like mine:
/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
he has others
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken watched the vid, very interesting. i guess the confusion comes from the difference between evolution fact and evolution theory. i see those organisms in the video as adaptations and not mutations as they are only changing to suit their environment. your thoughts?
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV Evolution is a theory in the way germ theory is a theory. It is supported by all evidence and rejected by none, modern biology only makes sense in light of it. All evolution is, is adapting to the environment in witch you life, over successive generations. That is evolution. Speciation via evolution happens when these changes add up so much that the DNA of the two creatures are no longer compatible and they cannot reproduce successfully.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken would i be acturate to say this is then, a demonstration of micro evolution, as all organisms are still able to reproduce with each other?
MonoAoV 1 year ago
@MonoAoV in the scientific community there is no separation between micro and macro evolution, because there is no difference. Macro is just continued micro. This has been show with fossils, DNA, bacteria, etc.. If we were trying to show speciation we would have to add to the code a feature to determine this, and that s getting terribly close to subjective. A significant rise in complexity is sufficient.
A more complex evolution:
watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@reflect7 Laws of mathematics are descriptive not prescriptive.
devourerofbabies 11 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
Look up biocomputing
adrastea99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@adrastea99 what does that have to do with anything?
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken I think what reflect7 is trying to say is, if in real life the controller is the laws of physics, and if you build the controller, who then built the laws of physics? Same principle. :)
therockstar17 1 year ago
@therockstar17 Why would it have to be a who? We have no idea how the Laws of physics came to be, but i see no reason why it should be a who, or why that who should be god. My program was just to replicate what we know to exist in order to run a scientific experiment in a faster way. It successfully proved that, given the environment we know to exist, and enough time, "information" will form from "non-information". It was not trying to show anything about the origins of the laws of physics.
TheWordsNotSpoken 1 year ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
I doubt you are a programmer. you do not seem to know what you are talking about. I am a programmer, for 17 years I wrote in basic, then moved to learn wireless and tele-communication protocols and coding, and if you compare the tech of reading a n RFID to holding a cup of water, you would kill urself before stating anything that is Atheistic in its grammar.
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 I do know what i am talking about, i am (or was 7 months ago) talking about a program i made that simulated "information" generation through evolution.
Please correct me if i'm wrong , but i do believe i wasn't arguing for anything "Atheistic" here. Finally, i don't see how " comparing the tech of reading a n RFID to holding a cup of water" would cause "you to kill urself before stating anything that is Atheistic in its grammar". Please clarify.
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
The point you moron is that all the technical details of a human hand holding a cup of water
is much more complicated than any high end technological device. RFID being one simple example.
any device has to follow all the protocol layers, to achive a minor automation when compared to biological capabilities will be considered dumb
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 Yes... things are complicated... so what?
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
wrong answer , you do not say things are complicated.
You say comparing the technology of high end devices, with biological devices and capabilities is an obvious evidence for a higher realm that explains our creation.
Another example for your simple mind is: a tree can not know if cars pass by, a tree can feel the sun, and water underneath, why would you assume that you are the high end of all creation?
Moron
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 You make no sense. We don't need "A higher realm to explain our creation" since our "realm" explains our creation just fine. You have offered me no evidence of any "higher realm" besides saying it's obvious from "comparing the technology of high end devices, with biological devices and capabilities". I do not draw that conclusion from looking at your presented evidence, i only see that one is more complex. What else do you see?
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
"i only see that one is more complex."
:-D well you say complex and i said it is wrong grammar. the biological devices and machinery all point to higher realm, the stupid thing is to try to sound serious about it as if u seriously believe that has came about by chance + physical laws... this is crazy imagine yourself driving a car with all the different moves you learn and save in your brain, happed by chance+physical laws itself over miilions of yrs, serious now ur crazy
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2
How do "the biological devices and machinery all point to higher realm"?
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
because it does not happne by chance + physical Laws :-)
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 Besides the fact that it can let's just assume it can't for a second. You are now basically saying that B is true because A is false without dealing with C-Z. That is called an argument from ignorance or a false dichotomy depending on how you word it.
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
what is your C_Z if I maybe ask ? :-)
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 other options
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
@TheWordsNotSpoken
LOL
Well if you are talking in argument and you other options and you just could not state one "other option"
:-D
oh Man that is (I farted ...)
balamanti2 8 months ago
@balamanti2 Do you seriously believe that either science is correct or there is a god?
TheWordsNotSpoken 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWordsNotSpoken
"either science is correct or there is a god?"
I believe that the statement u just made is false
balamanti2 8 months ago