From what I have found, there are far too many scents we can smell than there are receptors. Taking things to the quantum level, we are smelling different frequencies that are being transmitted by the scent particles. This allows for us to smell so many scents without having a different receptor for each.
How are you doing my friend long time no talk.still on creation sit. look In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time.
@drshamast It's not a matter of belief and it's not a matter of chance, evolution is ultimately a non-random process. The more it's pointed out that creation is only asserted, never evidenced the more amazing it is creationists still think it's anything more than fallacy.
@TheScienceFoundation You mean Creation is a non random process. The Creation of complex designs at certain frequencies attests to the fact that the Creator spoke the Creation into existence. Cymatics studies show that different materials will snap into predictable and repeatable patterns at certain frequencies. The higher the frequency the more complex the design. Cymatics and quantum physiscs blows evolution out of the water. Just look at wave-particle duality..
@SimplyThinkDreams No I mean evolution, creation is not a process, it's a meaningless bare assertion based on supernatural presupposition.
'Creation of complex designs at certain frequencies attests'
Completely circular logic, design is what you're trying to evidence in the first place, you can't get there simply by 'its complex design because it was created and it's was created because it's complex'
@TheScienceFoundation It has everything to do with quantum biology. Also, creation is certainly a process. If you wanted to create a piece of art work, you would come up with an idea by brainstorming, then you might sketch out some basic designs, etc. until you created the piece of work you desired. If you are going assert man does not create or use a creative process, you should get help. Evolution certainly did not create the computers we are using.
@SimplyThinkDreams Human construction is a process with known mechanisms, creationism is a bare assertion. If you're going to try to equate man painting a picture with supernatural creation, you should look up the definition of bait and switch.
@TheScienceFoundation Creationism is not a bare assertion. Even if everything was a result of the big bang, the big bang would have created the universe/multiverse/whatever it is, just like a rock tossed into a pond will create ripples. Painting a picture was an example, but man creates many things, which he thinks of in his mind first before he creates them. Chemicals are not creative they are reactive. Evolution asserts we are merely the result of such processes. It's hogwash.
@TheScienceFoundation What is one piece of evidence that the universe has always existed and that it was never created? Man is the empirical data. Man can create new things that never existed before merely by thinking about what he wants to create and then taking action to create it. Evolution for example, is an idea man created in his mind. Previous to its invention and spread through propoganda, all cultures around the world believed in a Creator of some type.
@SimplyThinkDreams 'What is one piece of evidence that the universe has always existed and that it was never created'
Conservation of energy
'Man is the empirical data. Man can create new things that never existed before merely by thinking about what he wants to create and then taking action to create it
No, that's another bait and switch 'man can alter energy and mass into new forms, therefore god created out of nothing' It's a fallacy.
@TheScienceFoundation Conservation of energy cannot be a law if the law can be broken. Nuclear reactions do not adhere to the conservation of energy and thus render the law to be false on a cosmic scale. Additionally, the dual slit experiment shows that Newtonian physics are easily broken by conscious observation showing particle wave duality. Like I said before, when you get down to the quantum level, all these physical laws go out the window. You can remain in your box if you want.
@TheScienceFoundation If mass and energy are the same thing then how can you have the equation E=MC^2?
If mass is energy, then you should be able to substitute E for M and M for E. E=EC^2 and M=EC^2 and M=MC^2. Those are the problems that come about when you assert mass=energy.
@TheScienceFoundation First off, the speed of light is variable and not a constant as it is was assumed to be by Einstein. If velocity = light path/time interval and either light path or interval change, the velocity of light also changes. wbabin(.)net/feast/cuong27.pdf
@TheScienceFoundation In this case by definition means an assumption. As velocity changes, so does time which would effect the measurement of the light speed.
@TheScienceFoundation Forget it. Many physicists out there know that the velocity of light is not constant and cannot be measured as so. Also, you never bothered to read the article I sent you and instead right away responded by posting an article from 1996, which even admits light does not move at a constant velocity.
@SimplyThinkDreams From your article in case you didn't read or understand it;
"If “light path” and “time interval” are changed, then “velocity” will be also changed."
No one is arguing that you can affect the speed of light if you change the medium it's passing through, they even admit they did not use a vacuum in their experiment, that they changed the light path.
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, that statement was at the end of the article; however, the article was addressing the change in time interval which is a component of velocity, not the medium its passing through. The comparison was between the measurement with between A and B when a clock is at rest compared to a moving clock. When the clock is not at rest, the time interval and distance are increased. we cannot measure the clock of the satellite light is reflected off of, only the earth clock.
@SimplyThinkDreams The medium it's passing through affects the time interval and they made it very clear that they altered the light path for their experiment. It was not done in a vacuum, it was done from satellite to earth.
@TheScienceFoundation The sun does go around the earth from our perspective. Its not an unreasonable observation. The Vedic astronomers knew that the earth revolved around the sun, which is evidenced in the Vedas; however, they explained astrology from a geocentric model because that was the perspective of the people. In fact, their layout from a geocentric perspective is extremely accurate. Just because the europeans believed in geocentrism doesn't make it true for the rest of the world.
@SimplyThinkDreams That was my point, at first uneducated glance primitive people would've easily thought the sun orbited the earth just as they would've thought there was some supernatural or magical being responsible for reality.
When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible.
No one is arguing that you *can't* affect C by changing the medium, rather.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
From what I have found, there are far too many scents we can smell than there are receptors. Taking things to the quantum level, we are smelling different frequencies that are being transmitted by the scent particles. This allows for us to smell so many scents without having a different receptor for each.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
If evolution is ultimately a non-random process explain to me how Amoeba is formed
drshamast 11 months ago
More complex hurdles for evo's and another Darwin coffin turn.
sownzgr8 11 months ago
@sownzgr8 More emergent systems for creationist to incredulate into 'goddunit'
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
How are you doing my friend long time no talk.still on creation sit. look In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time.
drshamast 11 months ago
@drshamast It's not a matter of belief and it's not a matter of chance, evolution is ultimately a non-random process. The more it's pointed out that creation is only asserted, never evidenced the more amazing it is creationists still think it's anything more than fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
If evolution is ultimately a non-random process explain to me how Amoeba is formed
drshamast 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
If evolution is ultimately a non-random process explain to me how Amoeba is formed
drshamast 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You mean Creation is a non random process. The Creation of complex designs at certain frequencies attests to the fact that the Creator spoke the Creation into existence. Cymatics studies show that different materials will snap into predictable and repeatable patterns at certain frequencies. The higher the frequency the more complex the design. Cymatics and quantum physiscs blows evolution out of the water. Just look at wave-particle duality..
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams No I mean evolution, creation is not a process, it's a meaningless bare assertion based on supernatural presupposition.
'Creation of complex designs at certain frequencies attests'
Completely circular logic, design is what you're trying to evidence in the first place, you can't get there simply by 'its complex design because it was created and it's was created because it's complex'
'Just look at wave-particle duality..
What's that got to do with biology?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It has everything to do with quantum biology. Also, creation is certainly a process. If you wanted to create a piece of art work, you would come up with an idea by brainstorming, then you might sketch out some basic designs, etc. until you created the piece of work you desired. If you are going assert man does not create or use a creative process, you should get help. Evolution certainly did not create the computers we are using.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams Human construction is a process with known mechanisms, creationism is a bare assertion. If you're going to try to equate man painting a picture with supernatural creation, you should look up the definition of bait and switch.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Creationism is not a bare assertion. Even if everything was a result of the big bang, the big bang would have created the universe/multiverse/whatever it is, just like a rock tossed into a pond will create ripples. Painting a picture was an example, but man creates many things, which he thinks of in his mind first before he creates them. Chemicals are not creative they are reactive. Evolution asserts we are merely the result of such processes. It's hogwash.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams 'Creationism is not a bare assertion.'
What is one piece of empirical data supporting it?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What is one piece of evidence that the universe has always existed and that it was never created? Man is the empirical data. Man can create new things that never existed before merely by thinking about what he wants to create and then taking action to create it. Evolution for example, is an idea man created in his mind. Previous to its invention and spread through propoganda, all cultures around the world believed in a Creator of some type.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams 'What is one piece of evidence that the universe has always existed and that it was never created'
Conservation of energy
'Man is the empirical data. Man can create new things that never existed before merely by thinking about what he wants to create and then taking action to create it
No, that's another bait and switch 'man can alter energy and mass into new forms, therefore god created out of nothing' It's a fallacy.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Conservation of energy cannot be a law if the law can be broken. Nuclear reactions do not adhere to the conservation of energy and thus render the law to be false on a cosmic scale. Additionally, the dual slit experiment shows that Newtonian physics are easily broken by conscious observation showing particle wave duality. Like I said before, when you get down to the quantum level, all these physical laws go out the window. You can remain in your box if you want.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams Scientific laws are descriptive not prescriptive.
'Nuclear reactions do not adhere to the conservation of energy and thus render the law to be false on a cosmic scale'
How so?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Mass is lost in nuclear reactions and energy is created.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams Mass and energy are the same thing. en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation If mass and energy are the same thing then how can you have the equation E=MC^2?
If mass is energy, then you should be able to substitute E for M and M for E. E=EC^2 and M=EC^2 and M=MC^2. Those are the problems that come about when you assert mass=energy.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams >Energy = Mass at the speed of light squared
>Energy = Mass
There is no substituting because they're the exact same thing in different phases
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation First off, the speed of light is variable and not a constant as it is was assumed to be by Einstein. If velocity = light path/time interval and either light path or interval change, the velocity of light also changes. wbabin(.)net/feast/cuong27.pdf
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, by definition.
phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation In this case by definition means an assumption. As velocity changes, so does time which would effect the measurement of the light speed.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams No, definition means definition
>This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Forget it. Many physicists out there know that the velocity of light is not constant and cannot be measured as so. Also, you never bothered to read the article I sent you and instead right away responded by posting an article from 1996, which even admits light does not move at a constant velocity.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams Do you have anything actually supporting a variable light speed in a vacuum?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams From your article in case you didn't read or understand it;
"If “light path” and “time interval” are changed, then “velocity” will be also changed."
No one is arguing that you can affect the speed of light if you change the medium it's passing through, they even admit they did not use a vacuum in their experiment, that they changed the light path.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, that statement was at the end of the article; however, the article was addressing the change in time interval which is a component of velocity, not the medium its passing through. The comparison was between the measurement with between A and B when a clock is at rest compared to a moving clock. When the clock is not at rest, the time interval and distance are increased. we cannot measure the clock of the satellite light is reflected off of, only the earth clock.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams The medium it's passing through affects the time interval and they made it very clear that they altered the light path for their experiment. It was not done in a vacuum, it was done from satellite to earth.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams 'all cultures around the world believed in a Creator of some type.'
And prior to modern astronomy most people thought the sun went around the earth.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation The sun does go around the earth from our perspective. Its not an unreasonable observation. The Vedic astronomers knew that the earth revolved around the sun, which is evidenced in the Vedas; however, they explained astrology from a geocentric model because that was the perspective of the people. In fact, their layout from a geocentric perspective is extremely accurate. Just because the europeans believed in geocentrism doesn't make it true for the rest of the world.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams That was my point, at first uneducated glance primitive people would've easily thought the sun orbited the earth just as they would've thought there was some supernatural or magical being responsible for reality.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That has nothing to do with the point I just made. You are just a troll I see.
SimplyThinkDreams 11 months ago
@SimplyThinkDreams You claimed nuclear reactions violate the conservation of energy, I asked how so. How is that not relevant?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
It's only 1000x too weak to make a scent signal for us
Smell wasn't our dominant trait because we had brains so basically the argument here is 'organisms are different, therefore god'
Notice that no mechanism is given
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Did you find out the answer yet?
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum ?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I sent you two clips for your scientific evaluation. Did you get them?
salmagnum 11 months ago
@salmagnum Ah, the mass animal die-offs. I wouldn't comment, I haven't really looked into it to any depth.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible.
drshamast 11 months ago
@drshamast The odds, when calculating by chance, of a stone hitting the ground when you throw it approach infinity.
When you understand why that is meaningless, you'll understand why your strawman is meaningless.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago