Oh gee, so he can completely rape terms, ask for random crap, and then set himself in a position to invalidate by technicality and claims to the $250,000, and it means anything that noone's succeeded? I doubt anyone of significant authority has even tried, knowing what his requirements are.
They haven't gotten the money because there is no proof that is valid.
"1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Hold on, you seem to be talking about the big bang theory. Well the big bang theory, as far as I understand, is an idea that all the matter in the universe becomes compacted together into one tiny, super large black hole. And this thing is spinning very fast. Then, I'm not sure why, this mass expands into what we call our universe. There are some major problems with this theory that I'll try to show to you:
The first thing wrong with this is that if the this mass expanded, then all the matter in the universe would be evenly spaced apart. But as anyone can see by looking through a telescope, there are very vast amounts of blank space and many clustered areas of many stars and planets. Also almost every planet (and star) would be composed of nearly the same ratios of matter.
The mathematical equation for Boyle's law is:
PV = k
where:
P denotes the pressure of the system.
V is the volume of the gas.
k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the system.
This means that unless there is a strong outside force then matter CAN NOT form a liquid from a cloud of gas. The reason we have liquid on earth, is the earth's gravity. The gravity pulls all the surrounding gas together, and when water for example, is at the right altitude and temperature it sits in a state known as a liquid. This is because the matter is being pressed by pressure hard enough so that the atoms gravity holds them together, but they are not near solidly connected. Imagine a bag of marbles in your hand, you can wiggle the bag and inside the marbles freely move about to an extent, similar to a liquid. When you tighten the bag so there is no slack, and jiggle it around it feels solid, and the marbles do not move. This represents matter on our planet changing from solids to liquids.
So in an environment with almost NO pressure AT ALL, matter can not be pressed (dust) into a solid or a liquid because the atoms and molecules will simply bounce off of each other and keep going, their gravity alone isn't enough to form a solid clump of matter.
3. Matter created life by itself.
My biology teachers have failed to explain this process, if you can I would like you to.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). "
The first two are completely irrelevant to the matter of organic evolution, the third is impossible to "prove" as all that can be done is demonstrate its possibility, the fourth is an extension of that, and the fifth is an arbitrarily defined, obscenely long process which can be inferred by heaploads of evidence but cannot be directly observed within any practicality
Heap loads of evidence? If you had heap loads i'm sure i would believe in evolution, but all evolution has is ideas that can not be tested. Why would anyone believe something that can not be tested, and was created by humans. The last time I checked humans weren't perfect. So why would an idea like Evolution be considered true, or right? If something created by something flawed is made, then the product will surely be flawed. What perfect has ever come from a flawed producer?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title"# a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ..."
Evolution.
"(sciences) A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena; (sciences) A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory"
Evolution.
"An explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3"
Evolution.
"A set of propositions which summarise, organise, and explain a variety of known facts, eg Darwin's theory of evolution. Theories are intended to logically summarise information and to give a framework for the generation of new tests and ideas on the topic.
www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sp/teaching/glossary.shtml"
Will I say it this time? ... I guess so.
Evolution right here.
Well there has never been any experiment that leads logically in favor of evolution. Only ideas and conjectures created and carefully protected by the government. Evolution is more a religion than a theory.
The test used basic elements and compounds needed to create amino acids. Though, during the test there was no presence of NH4, ammonium. This is because ammonium is broken down by ultra violet light, so this test was unrealistic to start with due to the fact of a missing compound that would be present in any primordial soup.
Im very sorry, but the test had ammonia, not ammonium, but it lacked the presence of ultra violet light, which is an unrealistic property of the test. According to the Evolution, plants that were developing early on created almost all of the oxygen that is present in our atmosphere today. So back then, there would be no ozone (O3) to block out UV, which would destroy any ammonia.
The matter is, it's a step. We haven't a means of knowing the exact chemical and physical situation of the Earth pre-life, so we can only guess and come to partial conclusions - the same as we ever do with science. The lack of complete success says nothing other than that, if we are to take our theory on the origin of life ( not the process of it - evolution - anyways, which is a different matter ) to be true, then our understanding of the conditions at the time are incomplete. The presence of some degree of success implies that we are quite possibly on the right track.
So you don't know the composition, btw ammonia is completely necessary to create any amino acid, you don't know how matter formed life, and you have only partial conclusions based off of ideas thought up by flawed people. It seems to be that you all don't 'know' anything about your own ideas, I don't mean to be mean but that's how i interpreted your words.
Depending on your religious view.
No, depending on what the bible says.
For the people who voted "No" can you give a reason besides "my religion says so".
I voted yes. because we can see life adapt to their surroundings.
Yeah, I hate religion, so that's not what I'm saying. religion is a set of rules and or rituals that need to be carried out in order to get to heaven. Well Jesus *edit*:
did not *edit* come to earth to establish a religion, he came to save us from our sins, and allow us to have a relationship with God.
Well, you can easily observe 'evolution' if you take for example, an apple tree. You get your daily same apples because they don't plant the seeds in their soil with the apples they harvest- but rather they take the stem and replant it to grow the same kind- and not a different one. If you don't get it, there has already been quite a difference in genetics if theres already a change in taste and (how an apple might look like.). Voila, evolution. But we like our food as it is.
Uhm, it's still an apple after it is re planted.
Instead of pulling sources from no where to defend your argument, why don't you do it yourself?
That would take a long time, and I don't have the time right now. Sry, sometime I'll write a summary..
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 19 2008, 4:02 am by CecilSunkure.
None.