Why 7 days for Creation?

I think evolution in animals is a interesting subject. How they evolved based on their environment. The Darwin finches is a good example.

So you admit that there is another way to 'understand' and solve complex problems other than with math & science?

Your comprehension skills need improvement.

False. A theory of science is not defined as prediction and test but as explanation of phenomena as a consequence of a primeval phenomena.

Explanation .

Understood?

It appears that you have no knowledge at all about what a theory of science is.



In reality it won't matter how you explain it, the point is that the explanation must be corroborated by empirical means, not so by assumptions and less with thought experiments.



False. You can find the way to explain it with illustrations to elementary school children or by an essay and formulas to college students. You can explain how the process works.



What Higgs are you talking about, the Higgs boson?

But that is just another hypothesis. Where is your Higgs boson particle to start?

What the hell are you talking about when such a particle has never been discovered? It's true that at CERN a "new particle" was discovered, but no test has revealed that such novelty was the famous Higgs boson.

You must find first the Higgs boson, and see it interacting with other particles. Finding nothing means you still have nothing but pure imaginations.



Sure... right...

Find the particle first before witting more nonsense.

And this is how real science works: no evidence means no science. Period.

Relativity is not advanced physics, it's poor philosophy.

I'm a master in Sensation and Perception. I can tell you that poor Albert fell in the tricks caused by illusions of motion and distance. You can tell by his thought experiments written in his books.

Relativity is not science at all. The review of its validation shows that was a fraud committed in 1919.

So, you yourself don't need to understand relativity, because when fraud happens, the whole theory is automatically invalidated. The members of the Nobel Prize Academy for the branch of science, physics in specific, declared that relativity is not science and no second Nobel Prize was given to Einstein.

When you review the theory itself, you find gaps, errors, idiotic thoughts, the dude was a good writer but a complete stupid when he can't recognize illusions.



Your ignorance about the genesis book of evolution makes you write what you have wrote.

The theory sucks from its very beginning. While here in the US the new nation was busy growing its production and future power, in Europe the theory of Evolution was based on a change in species from worst to better, from simpler to more complex, from lower to higher.

Why do you think the title carries the word "evolution?"

In its very beginning, the idea was that species were inferior, lower, and in worst status, to become throughout generations into higher, more complex and better status.

You can't ignore the genesis of the theory of evolution.

Later, it was found that the primeval idea was wrong. Here is when evolutionists "changed" the meaning of the word evolution into a "technical term" which will mean a different scenario than worst to better, from simpler to more complex, etc.

But, here is the trouble for evolution. Theories can be updated only when are still valid.

But, evolution lost its validity when the main idea was wrong. Evolution lost its validity when Darwin conclusion that natural selection "acts solely with favorable" changes was proven false.

This is to say, when a theory is proven false the theory is discarded, not so "updated".

The theory of the Sun orbiting around earth has been discarded, never updated. The same as well, the evolution theory with favorable changes only was discarded, the theory itself sucks.

When you read about the current theory of evolution, you are witness of another fraud in science. Look, the court order was ready to sentence that evolution should not be taught to students, and evolutionists took a human skull and connected an orangutan jaw to it "to prove" evolution as the theory claimed. After a short time, the fraud was exposed but after the court sentenced already that evolution can be taught to students.

Fraud in evolution, fraud in relativity.

These two theories are not science but frauds.

Even today, with all the "updates" made by evolutionists, changing again the meaning of the technical term "evolution" in biology as "changes in species" so it can validate "any change" happening, the theory still is sucking, because there is an arrow in the changes, and the arrow is DEGENERATION.



The primeval horse had five working digits, the current horse only one, the other four are atrophied and not easily visible to the naked eye. The canines are present in male and female in the ancient horse, the new horse canines are in males only, the denture of the ancient horse was aligned, the current horse suffers of misalignment in the teeth...

You can observe that the horse has degenerated throughout generations.

The same with cells. The primeval cells were more complex, and today's cells are more simpler.

This is degeneration.

There is not a single species compared with its ancient ancestors that has gained more characteristics and losing less.

Totally the contrary, the complete review of species reveals that the current species has lost more characteristics and gain less characteristics compared with their ancestors, and to this scenario the word describing it is: DEGENERATION.

Learn it, live it, love it.

we will never see a Higgs bozon it is too small but, there is already enough data to prove it exists, And what it would look like if we could see it. it just has to be properly interpreted.

Relativity is great physics and great philosophy that was introduced by a great physicist. It is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be interpreted with the rest of the pieces of the puzzle including quantum mechanics, string theory, entropic gravity bug theory and many others So that interpretation provides us with A mechanism we can visualize in our imagination. We will never really see that mechanism it is too small

Cam,
Again you criticize without authority. Simply stating that an idea "sucks" or is "nonsense" doesn't make it so. Where is YOUR science? Where is YOUR research? Where is YOUR theory that describes observed reality?
Evolution does not necessarily progress from simple to complex, or vice versa. Where did you read that? Or DID you even read it? I doubt you know anything about evolution at all. Likewise you know nothing about physics.

Back to the topic: it took seven days because that's how many days in a week.

It only took six days though — he had a golf game scheduled on the Sabbath.

So what you really meant was that evolution uses math and science to accomplish what it does?

Your answers may need brushing up as well.

Math and statistics prove that macro evolution to higher complexcity driven by random processes is statistically impossible.

and math has proven, without a doubt, that bumblebees cannot fly.

You came up with that ignorant opinion. Keep digging.

Sounds to me like aeronautical engineers are less valuable than we thought. As far as bumblebees are concerned anyway.

Actually, I was asking for yours, but by now I’m pretty sure you have no idea what the subject was.

So, never mind.

As cosmogonic myths go, any more than 10 would be lunacy and no-one could countenance that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Eddie Izzard on Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF1p4qRkTZ8

Does that mean any truth is made false if more than 10 fallacies exist?
Somehow that does not pass the smell test.

I'm going to admit, right here and now, that I am never entirely sure of what ekename means.

I'm not even sure of what a 'cosmogonic myth' is.