Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
The fantasy of evolution is falling apart, and scientists are not quite sure what to stick in its place. Evolutionists also are not understanding that Atomism has been refuted and that evolution, as it is generally taught that we move from a state of less complexion to more complexion, violates the second law of thermodynamics which states something of the opposite effect.

Yeah, the thousands of scientists all over the world totally forgot all about the second law, how stupid they are...

The second law states that entropy in a closed system will increase, however, the earth is not a closed system. Do ordered snowflakes form? Do complex amino acids form from basic components a la Miller? Do plants grow every spring? Does an egg grow to a more complex adult?

Has the second law been violated or maybe the second law doesn't apply to certain systems?

Another good example of Ghostwriting is the use of Fluoride in the water. Take a look at the molecule of it and tell me that scientifically speaking, it is needed for our health and thus added to the drinking water. Last time I checked H2O worked just fine by itself but somehow scientists are like many other human beings and decided to either be lazy or not do their homework, or they sold out.

Well there is evidence that flouride does strengthen tooth enamel and reduce tooth decay, but it is a bit crap and must be weighed up against the evidence of dental flourosis.

2 basic forms of stupidity shown manifesting, but there are so many more examples

Many more examples...

[edit on 9-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by bothered

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
The fantasy of evolution is falling apart, and scientists are not quite sure what to stick in its place.

Yeah, I never really fell for that whole evolution thing. Considering the first few finds were proven fakes. It all began with the search for the "missing link", and people were sticking chicken bones together to try and drum up publicity for there town.
Next thing you know, we're discovering creatures that obviously should be more resilient than we, but yet died out.

Don't you think we found a lot of fossils before Darwin's theory and we are still finding them today?

Are they all fakes? Are T-rex fossils composed of chicken bones - they must have been big chickens?

Because some people are dishonest does it cause doubt on a whole scientific theory, the result of over a hundred years of research and involving thousands of individuals?

I found a fossil down in the south of england myself, was it a fake?

[edit on 9-9-2006 by melatonin]

Well, all of us failed to respond on topic. The intention of the thread was to name a theory that is accepted as true but has no supporting evidence at all.
None of us could provide such a thing. (Creations or ID are not accepted as being true - they are only accepted in a small group)

Originally posted by melatonin

Don't you think we found a lot of fossils before Darwin's theory and we are still finding them today?

Are they all fakes? Are T-rex fossils composed of chicken bones - they must have been big chickens?

No, I don't believe we found a lot of fossils. With humans having oral tradition, and as many "supposed" finds there are, I would think there would be more stories of monsters that are lying in waits somewhere.

If these dinasaurs were as diverse and prolific as once believed, why is there no trace of them in the areas I have looked. I realize it is supposed to be monumental, but to then turn around and say they dominated the planet and were wide ranging is somewhat of a misnomer.

I'll have to go with the argument, especially here lately with all of the underwater quakes, why hasn't something washed up on shore yet from disturbed sediment (although I do like my shell collection, not fossils though). I bet it happens, now.


And to further my point of handed down tradition: I don't know what version of evolution you believe, but dealing with the one where we coexisted with ferocious beasts (saber whatevers and the like), exactly what strategies are in place this day that helped us attain survival when faced with such a challenge. If we faced something that was much larger, stronger, and faster; and we were merely prey, what technology has been unearthed that deals with this. I've found a few hunting arrows, small collection of war arrows, but nothing that could tackle a 1500 pound cat that was after me and those around me.
I don't necessarily fall for this "dug a pit" and "dropped large stones". Animals don't fall for that much these days (ask any prankster).


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

Originally posted by bothered
No, I don't believe we found a lot of fossils. With humans having oral tradition, and as many "supposed" finds there are, I would think there would be more stories of monsters that are lying in waits somewhere.

If these dinasaurs were as diverse and prolific as once believed, why is there no trace of them in the areas I have looked. I realize it is supposed to be monumental, but to then turn around and say they dominated the planet and were wide ranging is somewhat of a misnomer.

Have you never actually seen a fossil? They do exist you know, it's not a grand conspiracy. Fossilisation is a process that requires certain conditions, so don't be surprised if you don't find them in your garden.

Considering the genes for complex language have been around for a couple hundred thousand years, are you not surprised that ancient manuscripts don't mention the plethora of dinosaurs we know existed millions of years ago?

Do you really doubt that these fossils are real and suggest these animals existed?

I'll have to go with the argument, especially here lately with all of the underwater quakes, why hasn't something washed up on shore yet from disturbed sediment (although I do like my shell collection, not fossils though). I bet it happens, now.

Fossils are dredged from the north sea very often and are found in drill cores.

Why don't you travel to a place where fossils are found and see for yourself. They are just sitting there waiting to be found.

And to further my point of handed down tradition: I don't know what version of evolution you believe, but dealing with the one where we coexisted with ferocious beasts (saber whatevers and the like), exactly what strategies are in place this day that helped us attain survival when faced with such a challenge. If we faced something that was much larger, stronger, and faster; and we were merely prey, what technology has been unearthed that deals with this. I've found a few hunting arrows, small collection of war arrows, but nothing that could tackle a 1500 pound cat that was after me and those around me.
I don't necessarily fall for this "dug a pit" and "dropped large stones". Animals don't fall for that much these days (ask any prankster).


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

Well, I'm quite boring and accept the evidence provided by the scientists involved, the evidence that fossils are ancient animals is robust.

I suppose ancient humans used the same strategies as a warthog or some other smaller species uses to survive when preyed upon that we see in nature right now. Except we have slightly more nous due to a considerably larger neocortex. How do people survive when surrounded by all those lions, tigers, and bears that exist today?

As social animals, humans have the ability to defend against and hunt down much larger animals.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by melatonin]

I realize oil is supposedly fossilized material (haven't understood that well, thought it was conditional plant material that was super saturated under the right conditions). But, the point I'm making: Why isn't there a lot of fossilized wood, plants, microbes (maybe from Mars, but not here).

When an evolutionists shows me proof that there is a fossil that died of natural causes and wasn't nawed on, I'll study further. There has never been presented a virii infested, bacterialogically acclimated, or emanciated (signs are evident) fossil. I find it very hard to believe that all fossils just "fell" into a pit and broke their leg or something. If the dinasaurs supposedly died out in the mass extinction to to climatic changes affecting the food chain, I want to see some piles of bones that would be, guessing here, in a congealed state due to the brittleness that accompinies starvation.

If I could just see one skeletalized fossil that showed some type of injury that had healed, maybe I'd consider the argument on another level. However, all I am presented with is a pile of something that existed in just the right conditions to make it to this point in time, in very good condition. I guess it just "fell" there with that intention.


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

Well, here you go:

"What's interesting is that Sue didn't die from any of these wounds. They all show extensive healing, a sign of good health. At this point it looks like Sue lived a good, long life - and then she just died."
www.crystalinks.com...

And I just googled for that....
edited to add the search link
www.google.com...
[edit on 9-9-2006 by Apass]

Briefly glimpsed, as I always do, and although I saw some plaster stuck in the holes, I failed to see the striated, dense, rough healing site. But then again, I didn't expect to.

Just to draw criticism, I was briefly glimpsing at a show on about Homo Erectus and the trans-migration from area to area. The authors of this "show" said that it came about that there were occasionally errors in course. Imagine that. When shipping was prevalent and we had keels and sails, you still needed a coast line map to find your mark. Often off by 300+ miles. Yet, Homo Erectus was able to plot and navigate better. Lost technology?

Of course, my favorite flaw in evolution as I have stated elsewhere (ad obscuratae) is that if simple cells formed from some type of ooze, how did they manage to rid themselves of the toxins at the time of forming. I believe that at the time, CO2 levels would be enough to eliminate even the most resilient of algae (forming a type of acid when coalesced into an organism).

fluoride is good for you?

Originally posted by La Balance
fluoride is good for you?

Are you referring to the debate over whether or not to add F to the water?

Which makes me think, with all of the steady impacts from meteors that were supposed to have occured during the reign of the dinasaurs, and knowing that that kicks up a lot of Se, shouldn't there be a greenish tint to some of these "bones"?

From the same search
www.biology.ualberta.ca...=%22dinosaur%20fossils%20heal%20signs%20pictures%22
If you want to see pictures, check page 6 (172).

Originally posted by bothered
But, the point I'm making: Why isn't there a lot of fossilized wood, plants, microbes (maybe from Mars, but not here).

There are many fossils of plants, trees, seeds etc. My son has fossilised fern. Microbes are a bit more difficult due to their nature, but there are fossils of cyanobacteria.

When an evolutionists shows me proof that there is a fossil that died of natural causes and wasn't nawed on, I'll study further. There has never been presented a virii infested, bacterialogically acclimated, or emanciated (signs are evident) fossil. I find it very hard to believe that all fossils just "fell" into a pit and broke their leg or something. If the dinasaurs supposedly died out in the mass extinction to to climatic changes affecting the food chain, I want to see some piles of bones that would be, guessing here, in a congealed state due to the brittleness that accompinies starvation.

If I could just see one skeletalized fossil that showed some type of injury that had healed, maybe I'd consider the argument on another level. However, all I am presented with is a pile of something that existed in just the right conditions to make it to this point in time, in very good condition. I guess it just "fell" there with that intention.
[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

People do study the fossils for such things as diet and health, looking for healed breaks in bones etc. You'd have to do a bit of research yourself to know more, but this guy talks about what he does...

]Dino detectives

Here's a pic of a bone suggesting an arthritic reptile...

arthritic dino

Homo erectus was glad to be thick-skulled...

Bone heads

I'm sure you could find more if you spend a bit of time researching.

Originally posted by La Balance
fluoride is good for you?

Well the best review of data I know of, an NHS study in 2000, found that there was evidence that it strengthened tooth enamel, no evidence of cancers etc, did cause fluorosis.

But they did conclude the studies they found were not very good.

Hey look, I'll be honest. While studying at the local university I came upon the chance to study some donated fossils. Still have their authentication tag lying around somewhere. Nothing more than C, mixed with lime and a bit of undetermined dye, although it did seperate quite nicely when agitated.

I'll explain what I did:
1 I wanted to pulverize some of the material and try to detect degraded Ca, so I chose the most readily availibe, buffered, acid available off the shelf. Vinegar.
2 When I saw the reaction, I naturally assumed a base-form.
3 Decante (dye seperated)
4 Water saturation to try and seperate materials, which they did.
5 Applied small current to a solution of water with material since certain compounds have a distinct voltage. (I forget exactly, but C was detected)
6 I naturally assumed CaCO3, but no C could be yielded, then discovered CaO through observing the bubbles and yielded Ca (through current in solution).

This is all kind of piece-wise, for certain. But something that definitely shouldn't happen is a dye being observed. This is the "Achilles Heel".

We can argue till the next "mass extinction", but I'll never believe the cockamamy stories.


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

Take any of your known fossils and add non-dilute vinegar and watch the deterioration right before your eyes. If they can withstand the pressure needed to fossilize, this should not harm them. The results can be interesting, unless they've figured a way around it.

Originally posted by rich23
And, personally, although I'm no creationist, Darwinism has always seemed rickety to me.

Care to explain why? I mean, evolution has been proven over time to be true...
Apart from creationism (which is widely believed to be untrue) what replaces it??

Originally posted by bothered
Hey look, I'll be honest. While studying at the local university I came upon the chance to study some donated fossils. Still have their authentication tag lying around somewhere. Nothing more than C, mixed with lime and a bit of undetermined dye, although it did seperate quite nicely when agitated.

I'll explain what I did:
1 I wanted to pulverize some of the material and try to detect degraded Ca, so I chose the most readily availibe, buffered, acid available off the shelf. Vinegar.
2 When I saw the reaction, I naturally assumed a base-form.
3 Decante (dye seperated)
4 Water saturation to try and seperate materials, which they did.
5 Applied small current to a solution of water with material since certain compounds have a distinct voltage. (I forget exactly, but C was detected)
6 I naturally assumed CaCO3, but no C could be yielded, then discovered CaO through observing the bubbles and yielded Ca (through current in solution).

This is all kind of piece-wise, for certain. But something that definitely shouldn't happen is a dye being observed. This is the "Achilles Heel".

We can argue till the next "mass extinction", but I'll never believe the cockamamy stories.


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]

Quite a few years since I was in chemistry but it was obvious that the acetic acid (basis of vinegar, I hope it wasn't true table vinegar?) would react with calcium carbonate producing water and CO2, therefore the reason you had little evidence of Carbon (although depends if there was enough to completely consume the carbonate). The lack of Carbon suggests the carbon was lost through CO2 and the rest bound up in the acetyl group.

As for the dye, maybe contaminant in your reagents and samples, maybe not. Using electrochemistry to qualitatively assess inorganic elements is a strange approach, chemists would generally use some form of known reagent to cause precipitation, absorption spectroscopy, flame test, or something similar - should hunt down my Vogel's books.

Take any of your known fossils and add non-dilute vinegar and watch the deterioration right before your eyes. If they can withstand the pressure needed to fossilize, this should not harm them. The results can be interesting, unless they've figured a way around it.

Limestone based fossils will react in acid, it's basic chemistry, happens to anything made of limestone, including buildings. So is fossilisation, don't think pressure is that much of a requirement.

I don't see why the presence of a dye in a class lab experiment would make you doubt the validity of paleontology and geology. 'Cockamamy stories', so much for studying further, oh well....

[edit on 9-9-2006 by melatonin]

A lot of my studies includes comparisons of footnotes, so to speak.
I find it hard to believe during America's strip mining era that nothing like a giant lizard was ever found. Sure to draw more nickels than a Gun Show.

But, when cast molding and white dyes are introduced into the mainstream culture, suddenly archeological finds crop up over night and an immediate business is formed.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Evolutionists also are not understanding that Atomism has been refuted and that evolution, as it is generally taught that we move from a state of less complexion to more complexion, violates the second law of thermodynamics which states something of the opposite effect.

Well to prove you're wrong:
Humans need to eat plants/animals, which are a well organised form of the matter. After the digestion takes place and you go to the restroom, you'll end up with....lets call it disorder. This means that for your entropy not to increase, you have to increase it around you (from the organised matter in the plant/animal to the disorder of the....). If you stop eating because there is nothing else for you to eat, you'll die. In other words, when you can not increase the entropy around you, you can't control anymore your entropy and it will increase.
Humans are an open system and the entropy doesn't increase because it's a dynamic system/equilibrum.

Originally posted by bothered
A lot of my studies includes comparisons of footnotes, so to speak.
I find it hard to believe during America's strip mining era that nothing like a giant lizard was ever found. Sure to draw more nickels than a Gun Show.

But, when cast molding and white dyes are introduced into the mainstream culture, suddenly archeological finds crop up over night and an immediate business is formed.

Fossils have been found for a long time, it was not a recent invention. There are books from the 16th century that describe fossils and general opinion is that legends of dragons and others creatures are based on the presence of fossils. Aristotle, Xenophanes, and Herodotus described fossils over 2000 years ago. Da Vinci noted that fossils were old creatures.

Also, not all fossils are limestone-based. As I said, get yourself to a place were fossils are found, look for yourself. Those pesky fossils hide in all sorts of rocks.

Whoever decided to set up this conspiracy must have been pretty thorough, fossils are found all over the world and amazingly we find them in just the right geological strata, they have even sorted them over the geological timescale to indicate progressive evolution; they have left them hiding deep inside cliffs in the south of england and underground in china, USA, and madagascar; 2 miles under the sea-bed; at the top of mountains - amazing!!!

whatever tickles your pickle...

[edit on 10-9-2006 by melatonin]