THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION - FICTION, NOT "SCIENCE"
The theory of evolution is ideology, not "science." It's been more than a hundred years since Albert Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity - how Energy "relates" to Matter: Energy is "excited Matter," Matter is "congealed Energy," as formulated by the equation E=MC2 (squared.) What have evolutionists produced since then?
The Uniform Field Theory of Gravity is still mathematically unknown - it would unify all forces of Physics, from Quantum Mechanics to Newtonian or Planetary Mechanics, from the atom to the space-star body, from the solar system to the galaxy, from one quadrant of the Universe to another.
Quantum Mechanics depicts the structure of the atom, the particles of which interact in prescribed ways for which there appears to be no "equation." When Schroedinger experimented in his attempts to simultaneously quantify electron mass and velocity, he could not; he compared the process to a "cat playing hide and seek," as if the electron could be in "two places at the same time." This is referred to as "Schroedinger's cat." Isaac Newton quantified planetary motion in relationship to Gravity in the equation F = MA, where Force is the equivalent of Mass times Acceleration. And Albert Einstein quantified gravitational radiation in terms of Mass having the capacity to "curve" or "bend" Space. Solar gravitational radiation and its effects on planets and the Space surrounding them can be understood in terms of E=MC2 (squared.)
Therefore, thus far, in terms of physical equations, the main ones are F=MA and E=MC2 (squared.) No evolutionist scientist looking for so-called "Big Bang," has produced equations for the other forces - namely, Quantum Mechanics and galactical interrelationships that keep the greater Universe together as a whole. Einstein called it, the Uniform Theory of Relativity, to top the Specific Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity.
This is what astrophysicists should be working on, rather than fanatically adhering to the theory of evolution while investing all their energies into a fruitless search to rationalize so-called "Big Bang," while ignoring more pressing problems of Physics. I am 56 years old and would be greatly appreciative if they would discover a law or theory of Physics proven by a "relativity equation" that would go beyond what Einstein has already discovered. The law of Gravity, for example, states that Mass attracts Mass; but a uniform FIELD theory of Gravity requires a "center of field" rather than a center of physical mass.
Instead, astrophysicists are "busybodying" with irrelevant debates and speculative forays that smack more of evolutionist propaganda and science fiction than real scientific inquiry which self-servingly reward them with government grants and university chairs. Hence, the self-evident truth we hold that the theory of evolution has contributed nothing of substance to the advancement of the "hard sciences," like Physics and Chemistry.
For example, there is no valid evolutionary explanation regarding why electrons follow a certain path, or why molecular bonding at outer level electrons arranges itself in certain specific patterns, with certain specific elements, under specific conditions of temperature and pressure. Things are the way they are because God created them for us to witness and understand in the way we validly discover them. And that's why, it is said that "scientists do not ask why." Their "explanation" is that given "infinite time" and "random chance," any outcome is possible, including the present state of the Universe. But, as we know, things are too complex and too well-organized, and make too much sense scientifically to have had happened by "random chance." Orderly organization that is amenable to scientific equations is accountable only to a rational, omnipotent, loving Creator who imparted to us, mortals, a portion of His own spiritual intelligence in order that we might understand the environment He fashioned for us to live in. After all, a watch on the beach proves the living existence of a watchmaker. Be a "watchmaker; bring us "beyond Einstein;" "beyond Relativity."
Thanks. God is good. Remember to thank Him for all these blessings. God bless you. Leo
















I think you're posting to the wrong website.
April 12, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but here goes:
Einstein didn't "discover" the Theory of Relativity, he developed it.
I assume you're trying to talk about the search for a "UNIFIED field theory"....not UNIFORM.
WTF is "solar gravitational radiation"? Is that something new they've discovered since I've been out of grad school?
Schrodinger's Cat wasn't playing "hide or seek". It was both "dead and alive" until the box was opened and observed and the wave function collapsed into one of the two states.
I could go on, but suffice to say that I hope for the sake of the children of IL, you are NOT a science teacher. The rest of this (along with most of your other spam) is just a bunch of gobbledygook.
April 12, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is, I'm pretty sure, no danger of that.
April 12, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is, in all probability, highly unlikely.
April 14, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this is one of the three things that were not hilariously wrong in the "article."
The phenomena whose explanations or descriptions theories are, are considered to be universally applicable (normal caveats of theories apply) regardless of whether we understand them, and therefore they are discovered--as in, understanding thereof is gained--rather than invented or developed. The latter can roughly be considered to require application.
Does the distinction make sense?
April 13, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick rule of thumb: If it has testable and falsifiable predictions, it's a science. That's something intelligent design and other creationism either can't or won't produce.
April 12, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor can/will those who construe the principles of evolution as an explanation for origins of life.
Dueling religions ... gotta love it.
April 13, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, I love the fact that you write well. I love the fact that you have no problem vocalizing your opinions on a website that doesn't necessarily include too many who agree with your viewpoints.
But I also love the fact that other people here post good blogs, and I hate to see a blog hog.
I asked you earlier today to try to limit your posts to perhaps one a day, but you apparently don't feel inclined to do so.
Please reconsider. Thanks so much.
April 12, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, if you're looking for a unified field theory, I suggest that you read Wholeness and the Implicit Order by David Bohm. Bohm was a protege of Einstein and, as far as I can tell, went beyond Einstein. He demonstrates the necessity of the undivided whole being considered logically prior to any finite part--particulars--of the whole. Now, if you want to call that whole God, then go ahead. But you should be very careful not to mix the language of religion with science. If the truths of science coincide with your religious belief system then so be it. But please be very careful not to suggest a methodology based on a priori non-synthetic beliefs (whether religious, cultural, or anything else). That is--by definition--non scientific.
Leo, I think you'll enjoy Wholeness and the Implicit Order by David Bohm. I think it will answer many of your concerns.
April 12, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No point in arguing, since you avoid commenting.
April 12, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case anyone's wondering:
Leo doesn't know jack about chemistry. Or physics. Or especially biology.
Nothing but troll droppings here.
April 12, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And apparently doesn't understand that mathematics is not the same as science.
I do hope Leo chooses to eschew anti-biotics, and other products of scientific progress guided by evolutionary theory.
Anything less would be quite hypocritical.
April 13, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, thanks for demonstrating my new General Theory of Ignorance which is expressed mathematically as, 0=0, and verbally as, a hole is always empty regardless of its size.
April 12, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
General Theory of Ignorance... I like that. Merlot, I think, in concert with the particulars of someone blogging without responding to comments, you may be onto a Unified Field Theory of Ignorance. Or maybe even a Special Thoery of Trolldom.
April 13, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am currently working on those theories as Leo is providing tons of relevant empirical data for study.
April 13, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your hard work in researching this vital field inquiry!
April 13, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This research is critical to understanding the utter stupidity of GOPers. Once we understand the nature of the disease process, an effective treatment can be developed.
April 13, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OnWAOqZj58
April 12, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass. Go someplace where your nonsense is appreciated.
April 12, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, TOG, you saved me having to write that.
It being evolution, Leo, there wouldn't be any form of "big bang" there would be lots of tiny little bangs, and if you were paying attention, they find further proof of evolution every day. It's in the papers every day, you just don't read them.
A mind's a terrible thing to close, Leo.
April 13, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's been spamming this crap all over the net - on science and liberal sites, primarily. Signs up, posts his drivel, and runs like a scared rabbit. Never bothers to stick around and actually defend his assertions.
Wotta chickenshite.
April 13, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leo, you seem to have a lot of questions. Here let the pretty moving pictures and words inform you of some of your most pressing questions.
Physics, quantum mechanics, relativity and how they are on the brink of being combined into one master theory of everything.
The Elegant Universe - NOVA (PBS)
On Evolution, nothing debunks creationism like the facts.
Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial - NOVA (PBS)
April 13, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leo knows as little about his "favorite" books as he does about science. Hugo did not write "La Pere Goriot." Balzac did.
April 13, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
ERRARE HUMANUM EST! Thanks for the correction. I read "Father Goriot" in the 1970's and quite a few other novels and other books, and did make a mistake. I double-checked. And it is Honore de Balzac. God bless you. LEO
April 13, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an insult to the U of I, my alma mater, and a world-class scientific research facility. I defy you to go back to Champaign and find a professor or Ph.D. candidate in the hard sciences that thinks your post is anything but the ramblings of an ignorant, delusional loon.
April 13, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would almost work as parody, but would have been more amusing if you had chosen a middle pseudonym that begins with the letter "O".
April 13, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, this was hilarious!
April 13, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee! I hadn't gotten that far into the drivel to notice...
Umm, Leo, you mean like this equation?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/hyds6.gif
April 13, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Yes, when I read that, I was thinking, "Gee, I sure remember seeing equations in my PChem book describing the interaction of atomic particles!" Granted, I was a couple of years behind ol' Leo, but only a couple, and since he spent 6 years in the Navy after high school, I would have finished college ahead of him. So it's not like something that hadn't yet been worked out when he was sitting in a science classroom.
Scary that Leo has a teaching certificate and doesn't even seem to know the difference between biology and physics.
April 13, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved the explanation of Schrodinger's cat. Hide and Seek? hahahahahaha
April 13, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
America is going to compete with the rest of the world in science and technology with this tripe????
We are so screwed.
April 13, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its never pretty when Religion meets Science.
So,
Jesus,Buddha and Mohammed walk into a black hole......
April 13, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, who the hell recommended this post?
April 13, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone playing a late April Fool joke? Or maybe just a fool?
April 13, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eek, astrophysicists are not researching the big bang theory because of Darwin. Jeez Louise. Just because someone can throw in a few equations does not mean he knows diddly squat about physics or biology or even that there is a grain of sense in his post.
Evolution is not ideology and you can write the opposite 1000 times on a blackboard and it will still be wrong, wrong, wrong.
What I don't understand is the unwarranted respect given a whack-a-doo post simply because someone tosses in e=mc2
April 13, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink