DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

www.popsci.com/...-latest-particle-collisions-find...reply to post by iterationzero


Yea that paper is very intense ,Yes I know it is just a search for a theory and unproven yet.

The above link is to an article that reaffirms what I was saying about sub atomic particles having extra communications with other particles.
What is your opinion of my statement that matter is not solid, thanks for your responce.

reply to post by supergravity

The source you're citing suggests that it's a new form of matter that relies on quantum entanglement, the phenomenon described by Schrödinger in 1935. I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation at hand. Any success in coming up with evidence to support your earlier claims:

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?
7. Can you provide any evidence that reputable scientists use radiocarbon dating to date anything that is considered to be millions of years old?
8. Can you provide any evidence that the work of Fischbach et al suggests that radiometric dating methods are flawed to such a degree that they would support the young Earth model you're suggesting?

Also, you're still failing pretty hard at citing your sources in an effective manner. Maybe you should work on that.

reply to post by supergravity


Quantum entanglement magic?

I'm sure I will make iterationzero's list for posting this, but if supergravity can post without any explanations, reason, logic, sources and or citations...
I can't possibly do any worse.



Linky

Sh#t just got deep

reply to post by flyingfish


I realize now you dont want to answer highly technical questions and would rather show your HAIL MARY pass
and use what you know best, deflect the question and make the poster look silly by going into YOUR UNICORN THEORIES.
The trouble with that debate tactic is that readers do understand your methods and why you want to turn this thread into a circus.

reply to post by iterationzero


You need to get out more if you think gravity is a solid theory and nothing violates it.

reply to post by supergravity

Still avoiding the tough questions...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?
7. Can you provide any evidence that reputable scientists use radiocarbon dating to date anything that is considered to be millions of years old?
8. Can you provide any evidence that the work of Fischbach et al suggests that radiometric dating methods are flawed to such a degree that they would support the young Earth model you're suggesting?
9, How long will it take you to learn to cite a source in a proper way?

reply to post by supergravity

I realize now you dont want to answer highly technical questions and would rather show your HAIL MARY pass

You can't be serious...
You have not asked any highly technical questions.
All you do is post out of context snippings from crappy sources that you have failed to properly cite and without any real explanation as to what it is your trying to convey.
Again...Your ignorance of science is astounding, You need to learn at least the basics of a subject before commenting on it.

and use what you know best, deflect the question and make the poster look silly by going into YOUR UNICORN THEORIES.

There is no way I can make you look anymore sillier than you have already done yourself.

The trouble with that debate tactic is that readers do understand your methods and why you want to turn this thread into a circus.

The trouble is... ATS readers are smarter than you give them credit for, and know who the real clown is in this thread.
Like I said before...if your intent is to come here and tell us what we think and tell us things about science that we know are incorrect, you are wasting your time.
You need to learn about how theories are valid and the definition of evidence.
Until you can do this, no one is going to take you seriously.

reply to post by flyingfish


Again your posts have no usefull content, so I will ask again , do you think matter is solid or being generated in frames (subject;frame dragging )


Please, if you know nothing about frame dragging next to rotating masses dont post any disinfo about unicorns or little green men to divert the question.

reply to post by supergravity


Please check your personal messages. I sent you one with some instructions on how to source those pictures. You can't just post pictures of websites and consider them facts. You need to put a clickable source link underneath each one so people can explore the sources and read everything in context instead of just assuming it's true. We have high standards for proof and evidence here on ATS.