Well, I could explain it to you — I have a degree in this stuff — but you might consider my tuition fees exorbitant You could always try the public library, if they have such things in your neck of the woods, or even use Wikipedia.

I recommend that you read this, it's very informative:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This is good too:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
That site talkorigins.org is really good, I highly recommend it.

Regards,
PM

Great resource! Thanks for sharing, I have found it very interesting.

For example here is the explanation for how life got on earth http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

I find it interesting that all of the evolution literature is an absolute definite MAYBE, Might have, could have, etc.

Oh and what's the code for?

I think that's very sensible. It contrasts strongly with fundamentalist religion, which declares "what I/my church/my book/'God' says is THE TRUTH and must not be questioned OR ELSE". Scientists don't go around claiming that they have 100% absolute truth. If you have proof and evidence that meets the standards, you could convince scientists and change their minds. Scientific knowledge is changing and being refined all the time.

See also, the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. At one point, someone in the audience asks both of them "what would change your mind". Bill Nye says "evidence", and Ken Ham basically says "nothing, my mind is completely made up". It should be clear that Ken Ham's way of thinking is a very good way to be wrong and stay wrong.

Oh that's my personal signature code. I attach it to my posts.

Regards,
PM

If you were on trial for a capital crime would you want hearsay evidence allowed? Nobody does, which is why it is disallowed. The "molten steel" people saw is a jump to a conclusion first of all that it is molten metal and secondly that it is steel. Some melted aluminum was found but that isn't uncommon. Aircraft aluminum has ignited and melted from mere friction where NO starter fires existed. and certainly not controlled demolition. Look up "Air France flight 358" or even a general search should suffice.

I watched all of the videos linked in this thread and several more and what I see is speculation and conjecture. Numbers are thrown out where no measuring devices recorded such temperatures. There is a distinct difference between Temperature and Heat. If you throw another log on the fire the temperature does not double but the quantity (measured in calories, BTUs etc) increases as does the length of time it can burn. Neither one is doubled but the product is.... just no effect on temperature. AFAIK NO remains of melted steel was ever discovered other than a small amount of nodules identified as leftover from welded construction, not from the time of impact and collapse.

For those who think I "drank the KoolAid" and just buy into the "Official Version" I do find some of the NIST report to be stunningly inaccurate on some details. One example is a claim was made that "any molten metal was likely caused by extended exposure" when experts know time exposed is immaterial if the melting temperature is not reached. I have no explanation as to why this was allowed to be included in ANY statement by anyone associated with NIST but since no puddles of molten steel were ever found, it is simply a mistake and irrelevant.

Incidentally it is worthy of note that ALL of the videos showing what appears to be molten metal are issuing from the floors impacted by the aircraft. That could not have been planned since it is obvious that at least one aircraft, poorly piloted (perhaps unfortunately not poorly enough) made radical corrections in order to impact the building at all. There is no evidence that what floors were hit was a detail of any plan but simply "hit the building wherever you can".

It is not yet known exactly how the first lifeforms occurred. Some of the preliminary steps required have been recreated in laboratories showing how organic chemistry functions under conditions similar to early Earth, but so far the exact mechanism is unknown. That doesn't change what we know to have happened after the fact. No serious scientist doubts the mechanism of Evolution. Period... and with good reason. Huge advances in Biology, Chemistry, and a mountain of other disciplines have ALL not only failed to falsify the Theory but support and refine it in ways Darwin couldn't have imagined in the wildest fever dream.... "Yet it moves"

BINGO! For those who intimate that Science is just another form of Faith, here is one ultimate difference. Only religion pretends to offer certainty about things which either have yet to be or cannot be tested. Science deals in Probabilities and with the question of Life, there are varying degrees of probability for isolated parts BUT even though you are seeing this on your monitor which consists of millions of pixels, even a fairly large percentage of "not quite perfect" pixels would not prevent you from "getting the Picture".

Its called scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state. What we are witnessing today is the same as what occurred with the inquisition, only the new religion that cannot be questioned is science, and the high priests are the scientists.

None of "their" theories can rule out a Supreme Being, God etc... In fact the more science explains things the more evidence unfolds of a Universal Blueprint, Intelligent Design etc... Perhaps, some of the religious details are man made, but the overall conjecture has yet to be "disproven", of course, some things will never be known until that time comes for all us, similar to how we presume the sun will always rise in the am.

Regarding evolution, it is true and not true, true that all life exists for the purpose of living and surviving and that all life will struggle to grow, evolve etc..., however, if you look at Darwins original text and original title, it was written on the basis of trying to prove "scientifically" that whites were/are superior to non-whites, interesting how the full title of his famous book is often shortened to just "Origin of Species".

What poses for most science today is unscientific, and no more valid than things uttered in the past and considered sacred, perhaps less so.

Regarding Global Warming/Global Climate Change, of course this happens, typically in cycles of 60, 300, 2,000, 5,000 and 10,000 years. These changes can be, and some are, charted and predicted with fairly good accuracy. These changes occurred long before mans arrival on the scene, long before industrialization, and will continue to occur even after the unfortunate circumstance of mans demise. The difference is scientific dictatorship and the technocratic state has found ways to take whats natural and profit from it/tax it. Its the ultimate scheme.

We seem to have drifted WAY OT since the point of science and pseudoscience was brought up in regards to Rules of Evidence and specifically about how "we all saw molten steel" is invalid right from jump street since nobody has spectroscopic eyes to identify composition. The below quoted post should probably be moved the "The Faith and Religion Mega Thread" but whatever I'll jump in.

Multiple citations needed here. Please how is it that the systematic and public search for how the world works even capable of dictatorship? I know of no country which has scientists in a position of political power. One only has to look to any national budget to see just to what degree scientists are revered by politicos. The last part would be funny if it weren't so tragic and in no small part, mean spirited. The Inquisition was religious power run wild, a widespread witch hunt that murdered millions, wiped out entire towns,... men, women, and children and the level of torture used as a means to finger others was insane and inhuman. Please do try to explain how this equates to Science and scientists.

While it is absolutely true that Science cannot rule out a Supreme Being since by definition that is outside of our Universe where no information is possible. It may be important to realize that while individually some scientists may care about the speculation, Science just isn't concerned with the issue and is not trying to prove or disprove what it cannot. There exists a huge gulf between Universal Blueprint and Intelligent Design. The blueprint is the Laws of Physics which are readily observable and testable but there is no evidence and can be no evidence for any Intelligence behind them. The point isn't even merely moot. It is impossible.

Citation please. Have you actually read "Origin of Species"? I don't recall any parts that smack of racism. True, others interpreted and used it that way to further their misguided and often horrible causes but Charles Darwin did not. Please quote the passage that you interpret that even discusses Homo Sapiens in the context of Race let alone racism.

OK I'll play by your rules for the sake of "argument".... Poppycock!! Mere justification for the validity of opinion over logic, an offhand dismissal of the scientific method. Poppycock!

No species has ever been so widespread and actively involved in massive change that has profound effect on climate until humans. The data is incontrovertible. Current climate change has a very powerful human caused component and the proof is there for anyone who cares enough to view it. I know some of the people involved in the production of the award winning film "Chasing Ice" and trust me they aren't getting rich as if anyone would who is in conflict with Status Quo. You should watch that film or better look at satellite data or ice cores. The "scheme" is the one promulgated by Big Oil and bought lock, stock and barrel by those who would prefer to continue to burn massive quantities of fossil fuels. if you want to see dictatorship and scheming do a little research on the Koch brothers. They have been so successful at influencing and wielding political power that they no longer even bother to hide but brag about it. That boast isn't without considerable proof. They have made supporters and broken many they view as a threat to their oil-based income, especially proponents of human caused climate change. Apparently, whether by choice, default or ignore-ance, you serve them

enorbet,

First relax a wee bit, it is possible to debate without getting all hot under the collar.

Regarding the OP and your susequent posts about no proof, little proof etc...with regards to 9/11 towers, did you not read the links I provided here: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...5/#post5839484

Look closely at the engineers and scientists report.

Regarding the above post:

Here is the original title of Darwins book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". His book had two purposes, a) to provide scientific evidence of his belief of the above title, b) to destroy religion as a valid philosophy after his experience attending a seminary. Since you like references without DuckDuckGoing yourself: https://archive.org/details/onoriginofspec00darw

One major flaw with evolutionary thought is that it requires (or proves) the absence of a God. On the contrary, evolution can be viewed as a natural progression of "creation theory", just because individual religions may get things wrong, or disagree does not mean the underlying theory is wrong. Just like when science is proven wrong with one thing, it does not mean the theory is wrong, perhaps just the formula needs tweaking or expanding etc...

Regarding Intelligent Design and your premise of no proof, consider the Universal Language as being mathematical and eyes will open for sure. There is a Universal binary code for example, and that type of precision and perfection does not occur accidentally.

Your last paragraph I agree and disagree, can man contribute to harming the planet, of course we can, can we help the planet of course we can. Consider for example though that one major volcanic eruption spews far more pollutants than would take man generations to achieve and you put into perspective our contribution to the problem, yes its there, but this has far more to do with cycles. Man's ego is at play on both sides of this coin (pro man caused and anti man caused). Even if man were to leave the planet tomorrow, these cycles would still continue, now even in light of this, we should do things to reduce unnecessary impact on the planet, but anytime people or gov't.'s suggest that taxation/payments as a solution to that problem, its usually a scheme and not a solution.

Scientific Dictatorship and the technocratic state simply means that any idea, thought, philosophy or even science that is not in agreement with the mandated aforementioned "proven" sciences, is banned, cleansed from existence and often times made illegal (think book burnings etc...). They then have absolute control over the society(s) from policy making down to every day decisions in the household (hence the term dictatorship). It does not mean a scientist as King or President (although they could), they usually remain behind the scenes with the Representative doing all the talking. Another term for this is the Technotronic State, in this system there is no freedom, no thought only obedience to the approved "science".

Keep in mind as a teacher, scholar, scientist and physician, I mean no disrespect with this, merely stating a fact that is often not known or spoken about.

I am relaxed. Perhaps you interpreted my impatience with unsupported claims as anger. It's not. No worries.

As long as all that was, yes, I did read them and it added to my impatience. Let me give a concrete example. In this one, https://archive.org/details/Septembe...lledDemolition, the header reads (in bold type) and most of the "proof" follows with highlights in bold italics by me.

There is no evidence, no proof even though that is what is stated at the beginning as if established fact and re-affirmed in the last line. In the middle we can see why. Richard Gage is not an explosives expert, he's barely an architect with zero experience in buildings constructed like those at WTC either in size or methods. He has been discredited as an obvious "cashing in on controversy" guy since he has left his profession of architect and gone full time into writing Yruther books and doing speaking engagements. At the very least he is agenda-ridden and just like that article leaps to conclusions with nothing but speculation and conjecture. Sorry items like that are counter-productive for me. I have to remind myself that some who suspect foul play are actually in earnest and open to real study with solid evidence.


Naturally I followed your link but find it an overview confirming the full title but that was unnecessary since I had read that some time ago here ===>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/...origin-species . In full disclosure and all honesty I had forgotten the exact wording because I find it inconsequential since nowhere within is "favoured races" applied to white men as you claimed, that I recall. In that same vein your (b) claim that Darwin desired to destroy religion is preposterous. He was a religious man and his wife was absolutely devout and he held off publishing for decades because of his wife's reaction leading him to {correctly) conclude that many others would have the same short-sighted reaction. Furthermore, just as Darwin considered, Evolution is not anti religious. It is anti Dogma. He and many since the 150 year period after its publication consider that Evolution is simply the mechanism employed by the Supreme Being.

It would have been foolish and not a little dangerous to try to destroy religion 150 years ago and Darwin was not a fool. That should be obvious by the methodical and thorough nature of his studies.

As you should now see that's what I think as well and who thinks evolution is anti-God?... well, excepting religious zealots. The one caveat to the above is that when proponents claim their "bible" as proof and as undeniable proof because it is revealed by God, then we see deep errors, it certainly reveals that claim as false and casts doubt on what follows. Be that as it may within specific versions of Organized Religion, the overall question is, as I've stated, undeniable to be sure but equally without evidence and cannot be proved. No scientist of whom I'm aware claims that Evolution disproves the existence of a Supreme Being.

Obviously I disagree. I think that precision and "perfection" occurs quite naturally or you wouldn't be able to point to it. IMHO you leap from that in This Universe to a cause Outside The Universe.

Of course if Man were not here those cycles would still occur since they were in place for billions of years before Man came along BUT that doesn't change the fact that according to many studies quoted by Climate.gov

You are drawing lines connecting Science and Politics that don't exist. Scientists don't burn books or name one instance if you can. It is certainly true that once a theory has been tested and withstood such testing successfully for many decades it becomes hard to "unhorse" but that's generally a good thing. It took many decades for Phlogiston to yield to Oxidation and it took many decades for Steady State to yield to Big Bang, a pejorative term coined by a renowned scientist, Fred Hoyle, who doggedly hung on to his conviction until his death BUT nobody forced either down anybody's throat let alone made it illegal or punishable.

It is not Science but the public demand for technology that creates convenience that rules and even that is barely touched by politics. Most people, including politicians, just want Science to make fast food, cheap energy and better weapons. They are singularly unconcerned with Pure Science Research even despite the evidence that it almost always leads to prosperity and advantage when pursued and a "brain drain" when ignored. This can be seen by how many important projects the US has vetoed or reduced funding for including various telescopes and particle colliders. Where do you get this idea of "cleansed form existence"? Just look around the internet and the prponderance of pseudo science is nearly overwhelming, certainly sad and disgusting. Where is this pogrom of which you speak?

I suggest you read this: https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought...hout-the-bible

There are many non religious people who don't believe in evolution.

For those of you who are convinced I don't know what I'm talking about: I live/was raised on a farm. I'm well aware of the fact that animals can "adapt" and "improve" through selective breeding, since I do it all the time. However the part where everything "happened/evolved" from one speck of life doesn't make sense to me. Ever keep/study bees? You'll know what I mean.

Let's put that into perspective: I've got some Linux software for you, it might run on Linux, it's guaranteed to possibly improve your business, We strive to ensure that it might not steal and sell your personal data....etc.etc.

You'd say forget it. right?

Hmm
Sounds like they either don't understand what a theory is (in the context of science), or what the scientific method is. Or both.

I'm totally failing to understand the relevance of this analogy.

It's a weasel way to describe a program which may or may not run on linux, may or may not improve the business, and may or may not steal and/or sell data.
But disguised to look innocent, so it really isn't so obvious when you skim over the sentence without understanding the purpose of the statement.
It's something a lawyer would do on a daily basis, for example.

Read posts #63 and #64 in this thread.

Alright, since you won't explain the analogy, I'll have to make some assumptions. It sounds like you're saying you prefer when people speak with 100% confidence, even if that means they have to lie to you. Is that right?