Secondly, what has been shown in this very video proves without the doubt that the experiment to which i am referring was severely corrupted (too much air left (or produced in the very beginning of the experiment) in that "vacuum" chamber)! :
So, you're already hedging against the results of Bom's experiment. You actually know that it will work, so you're trying to come up with excuses ahead of time to dismiss it.
You not only lie to us, you lie to yourself.
My reply to JackBlack is going to serve as a perfect response to all other liars and cowards (as well), so feel free to read the following quotes very carefully, it is going to be like one time life experience a.k.a. mystical, unexpected, sudden encounter with Jesus, or better to say : sudden encounter with the reflexion of your soul (her wickedness) in a mirror... If you survive such revelation, i will be left with no option but to conclude that you haven't even read my extensive post (let alone read it carefully - with due attention), in the first place...Enjoy the truth!!!...Oh, i almost forgot it :
Stop panicking, sunny boy!!! You can't fight the facts, it's a futile battle, but even if you could (theoretically, at least) win this battle, you can't win the war, since it's the lost war (in advance) just like you are a lost cause!
Firstly, in the first part of this video you can clearly see how the model rocket engine (firecracker) can't burn in a vacuum :
You mean we can see how this specific firecracker and setup wont work.
Not that it wont work in general.
You have done nothing to show it is impossible.
Next few quotes will be the best way to reply to such classical JB stupidity :
A notorious facts - No 1 :No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet
they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment,
all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
You can search all 29 volumes of this final authority on all scientific matters (Encyclopedia Britannica) but you will look in vain for any PROOF for this revolution of the earth around the sun and its spinning on its axis every 24 hours.
It is simply stated as DOGMA and to doubt is to be damned to a spinning hell forever by the "scientific" community.
Many "astronomers" cite the
Foucault pendulum experiment that was carried out in Paris in 1851 as PROOF that the earth turns. It's a pity that the NASA space program has not provided them with more recent proof.
FOUCAULT DEBUNKED by Rob Durham :
FOUCAULT DEBUNKED by me :
A notorious facts - No 2 :David Berlinski an author academic,
agnostic, secular Jew got it spot on In his book '
The devil's delusion'...
Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?
Not even close.Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA, lamented:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going.Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both
Orgel and
Crick called it
a miracle. Other scenarios have therefore been suggested.
Hoyle and others postulate life was transplanted from outer space — which moves the origins problem to another time and place.
The multiverse hypothesis, proposed by leading origin-of-life researcher
Eugene Koonin, is currently in vogue—it replaces infinite time with an infinity of universes to account for the extraordinarily improbable existence of at least one life-sustaining planet.
Behe quotes
Klaus Dose:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.Biologists
J. T. Trevors and
D. L. Abel conclude:
"The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system.
It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex."
These probability arguments are irrefutable. Some evolutionists offer hand-waving contrary arguments, but even
Richard Dawkins admits "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."
"This is the evidence which has evolutionists completely stymied, and it is perfectly obvious why: anyone
considering the degree and quality of the complexity found in biological systems will recognize, based on logic and unvarying experience, that such complexity cannot and does not arise accidentally. Nor have scientists suggested how it could have happened. "[N]one of the papers published in JME [the Journal of Molecular Evolution] over the entire course of its life as a journal," says Behe, "has ever proposed a detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion."
Behe lists several biochemical systems which might be candidates for such studies; then he continues:
"The very fact that
none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems. . . . The reason for this appears to be similar to the reason for the failure to explain the origin of life:
a choking complexity strangles all such attempts."
The problem is so insuperable that
Stanley Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, was driven to speculate that life did not originate on earth at all, but that the earth was "seeded" by extraterrestrials.
The magnitude of the complexity of living things is difficult to convey in simple, short sentences. Perhaps it may merely be said that living things are typified by
a chain of complexity within complexity, almost endlessly, beyond this observer's capacity for amazement. There can be no substitute for a more detailed description.
Of course people will differ on the point at which they decide to break rules. But at least with the realistic criterion there could be evidence against the unfalsifiable. At least then people like
Doolittle and
Miller would run a risk when they cite an experiment that shows the opposite of what they had thought. At least then science would have a way to escape from the rut of unfalsifiability and think new thoughts. (
Michael Behe, “Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design,” Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol 9:146-147 (Ignatius Press, 2000).)
Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. … But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of “infeasibility” has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, “Is this scenario possible?” The question should be, “Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?”
One chance in 10^200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling. (
David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)
To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including
Darwin,
Einstein, and
Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?”
Christian Anfinsen replied:
“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (
Anfinsen, as cited in
Margenau and
Varghese, ‘
Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139).
Darwin said of his theory, that there would be ample evidence (in the future) of transitional forms to prove his theory. Evidence of tens of thousands of fossils of transitional 'species' should have been found by now,
but archeologists have not found one that's not heavily disputed.
Youtube exchange of thoughts No 1 :
segun shona
The complexity in biological life forms cannot be by chance. The DNA is a programme that guides so many activities within the cell and not only that it can replicate itself. It is as though it is a living organism on its own. The numerous codes it has cannot align by chance. My only problem is just that those who push for intelligent design are usually religious scientists with an obvious agenda i.e. to show validity for the belief in their God. Richard Dawkins did agree to the possibility of an intelligent design but it does not mean that that designer is God as presented in the bible or Quoran. It simply means there is an intelligence behind biological life period.?
odiupicku
Yes, but the question is this : How exactly high such intelligence should be in order to be capable to create such a complex life within such a complex universe? Could it be any lower type of intelligence than we supposed to be an intelligence of God himself??
Youtube exchange of thoughts No 2 :
DaddyKitty Daddykitty
The probability that your great great great great grandparents would meet was likely somewhere around 1 in a million. The probability that your great great great grandmother's sperm cell would win the race and meet with her ovule, would be somewhere around 1 in 2,000,000,000. Let's add the same pattern of chances from your great great great grandparents' chances of meeting and coming up with the corresponding ancestor all the way to you... How is it possible that you're here??!!?
odiupicku
You just can't get any smarter than you already are, unless you also use one another nick (JackBlack), isn't that so?
IN ADDITION :Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.
Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to
the universe,
organic life, or
history.
Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence.