evolution or bigbang?

dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
evolution or bigbang?

Why Do You Exist?
Was the universe created or is it merely an act of chance?
#1(the atheiests creation ...)The mainstream theory on the origin of the universe is called the big bang theory. Basically it states that in the beginning there was nothing; no time, no, space, no matter, no dimensions. Some how, there blinked into existence a singularity. (A point in space that had 0 height, 0 length, 0 width) that contained all the matter and energy in the universe. This point exploded and the results is the present day universe.
#2(the theists creation...)
Notice Genesis 2:7: “
…God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
are we the result of the “Big Bang”?or chance?
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
#3(The Atheist Test)
I don't believe in atheists. This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on your head? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.


Noor
Posts: 250
Joined: 2006-11-18
User is offlineOffline
Not this Ray Comfort

Not this Ray Comfort ignorance again...


serotonin_wraith
serotonin_wraith's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums, Ray!

Welcome to the forums, Ray!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Looks like Ray still hasn't

Looks like Ray still hasn't recovered from the debate with the RRS.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
wrong

I'm not American. I am from Finland
 and I'm not a troll

I'm the dark_light the real deal


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

Fission Mailed. Please allow 5-8 weeks for delivery. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Same Time Post! .....Sorry

Same Time Post!

.....Sorry old habit. Innocent


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Big Bang Theory was invented

Big Bang Theory was invented by pope Joseph Ratzinger


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: Big Bang

dark_light wrote:
Big Bang Theory was invented by pope Joseph Ratzinger

 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
That was the largest non

That was the largest non sequitur I have seen in some time...


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: I'm not

dark_light wrote:

I'm not American. I am from Finland
and I'm not a troll

I'm the dark_light the real deal

How does that old saying go? If you have to say that you are or are not something then you just might or might not be that something.

Let's stick to facts.

For instance, the first five sources on a Google search say that Georges Lemaatre originated the Big Bang theory. Even from a muslim site, same result. Is that definitive proof? No. However, it at least has some weight to it while simply declaring something as true without citing a possible method of verification is obtrusively ignorant.

The panzer pope Ratzinger might have had a 'big bang' but that could have involved prepubescent altar boys and would be difficult to verify.

Unfortunately, your forum topic illustrates that we may have quite a bit to discuss.

For future reference, evolution is NOT concerned with the formation of the cosmos. That is cosmology. The 'big bang' is in the realm of cosmology.

Evolution deals with biological interactions. It is the description of the process by which life forms change. Genetics and biochemistry fall into this category as aids to describe the process of evolution.

At no point, will you hear a scientist with any credibility say that 'evolution caused the universe' or anything like that.

Here's to a June sunny day in Finland. All 21 hours of it. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: #3(The

dark_light wrote:

#3(The Atheist Test)
I don't believe in atheists. This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on your head? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of deities. You claim that because humans are not omniscient there can be no atheists; i.e. that everyone believes in one or more deity. This is absurd.

Do you think that everyone believes in fairies, leprechauns and dragons because he or she is not omniscient? If not, you should see why your argument about atheists fails.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: I will

dark_light wrote:
I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii?

No.
dark_light wrote:
Do you know how many hairs are on your head?

Zero. I'm bald.
dark_light wrote:
I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know.

So fucking what?


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
#2(the theists creation...)
Notice Genesis 2:7: “
…God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
are we the result of the “Big Bang”?or chance?
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

Who created god?

 

Quote:
#3(The Atheist Test)
I don't believe in atheists. This isn't because I haven't met people who claim the title, but because such a person cannot be. Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. I will ask you two questions: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? I think I can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on your head? Probably not. I think, therefore, that it is reasonable for me to conclude that there are some things you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

 

So because we don't know everyting, Atheism isn't possible? If that is the case, every idea in the universe must be considered possible.

 

Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods given the evidence for them (none). Atheism is a rational position to take given the undeniable fact that there isn't any evidence. Think about this differently for a second - Do you believe in the dancing Unikorn at the center of the Galaxy or fairies or giant beavers that create planets by carving them out with their teeth? Do you believe it's impossible to disbelieve in them? There is no evidence for them, so by your logic you must beelieve in them or at least be driven to research the ideas.

Sorry, but your logic is very flawed and quite comical. I'm sure you just haven't thought this through very well and with some time and logic you will see the problem with your idea. One way to test hypothetical ideas is to replace the subject with something that could be considred just as valid given the proofs and then restate your claim. This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster concept is important. If you can replace "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and still have the same point, then your point is invalid and irrational and will prove nothing but that you are thinking irrationally.

Good luck to you.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: Big Bang

dark_light wrote:
Big Bang Theory was invented by pope Joseph Ratzinger
I have no idea who made the theory, but really it is unimportant to the facts behind the actual theory.  Only the facts of the theory matter not the creator.  I think this is some sort of authority fallacy.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
The Big Bang Theory has some

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from? Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?


The Universe didn’t all start from one point.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.
 
We know little or nothing about the moment of “Bang” itself.
Sad, huh? cheers... dark_light


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
 The Big Bang Theory has

 
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems.

 Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
 Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote:  Once

dark_light wrote:

 Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

 

Simple. The planets didn't come straight out of the big bang. The Big Bang formed Hydrogen which collapsed into stars. The stars formedn Helium, carbon, up to iron then supernova'd forming the heavier elements. The elements came under their gravity and formed planets and moons etc... Look at Kepler's laws for planetary motion to see why Venus spins in the other direction. 


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Also, the Big Bang Theory

Also, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, all matter would be (roughly) evenly distributed.

In the universe, there are too many “large scale structures” to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years, as suggested by the Big Bang Theory. Also, when observing globular clusters (groups of tens of thousands, to one million stars), they appear older than the universe, which falsifies the Big Bang Theory. Finally, there are contradictions between the Big Bang Theory, and thoughts of various religious nuts.
I'm not a religious person nor athiests.
cheers...  dark_light


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Same

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Same Time Post!

.....Sorry old habit. Innocent

OMG same time postz0rz!

You're not from LUE are you? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician

The Patrician wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Same Time Post!

.....Sorry old habit. Innocent

OMG same time postz0rz!

You're not from LUE are you?

 

 

No, I joined too late. I mostly go to CE.

 


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
O RLY? I'm The Forum,

O RLY?

I'm The Forum, Mostly Harmless and Religion myslef.  I have LUE access but 'tis a silly place. 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician wrote: O

The Patrician wrote:

O RLY?

I'm The Forum, Mostly Harmless and Religion myslef. I have LUE access but 'tis a silly place.

 

I might create a topic on the religion board. (I use the same username). What should it be about? I saw a topic on pantheism so I might post in that or create my own. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: the atheiests

Quote:
the atheiests creation

And from there I can tell it's crap. 


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Imagine you are looking at a

Imagine you are looking at a clock. The time you are looking at is not the true time; it is rather the time that you saw a very short while ago. The light reflecting off the clock takes time to reach your eyes. Now imagine traveling away from the clock at a certain velocity. The light would take longer to reach your eyes, as both you and the light are moving in the same direction. Because of this, the time you see on this clock is what it was some time ago. However, if you are moving at the speed of light away from the clock, the light from the clock will never reach you. From this phenomenon, you never “see” the time. At this point, time for you, relative to the time where the clock is, has stood still.
 This proved Einstein's definition of time, which is your movement in relation to the movement of light.

Scientists use Einstein’s theory of relativity in order to explain the creation of a black hole as well as the time functions in and outside of a black hole. The theory of relativity combines the theory of Special Relativity and the Equivalence Principle.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Big Bang Cosmology

Beyond Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang model is not complete. For example, it does not explain why the universe is so uniform on the very largest scales or, indeed, why it is so non-uniform on smaller scales, i.e., how stars and galaxies came to be.

The Big Bang model is based on the Cosmological Principle which assumes that matter in the universe is uniformly distributed on all scales - large and small. This is a very useful approximation that allows one to develop the basic Big Bang scenario, but a more complete understanding of our universe requires going beyond the Cosmological Principle. Many cosmologists suspect that inflation theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, may provide the framework for explaining the large-scale uniformity of our universe and the origin of structure within it.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
IS A SINGULARITY

IS A SINGULARITY ACCEPTABLE?
The oldest and perhaps best known problem of BBT is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the BB universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem.
If there were a BB, it would seem that events during the first instant of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic velocity; and some variations of BBT postulate velocities well above the speed of light.(1) Because the acceleration of even a minute particle to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the BB might have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity of ergs; not to mention the additional energy that would be required to overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe.
It has been suggested that this singularity problem can be solved by postulating a universe of zero net energy;(2) a universe wherein the positive kinetic energy, the potential energy, and the Einsteinian equivalent energy of the mass of the universe is equal and opposite to the negative energy of gravity. Somehow, if the universe is to collapse in the future as some believe, all the energy that was expended in the birth and expansion of the BB universe was only borrowed; someday to be paid back. However, that doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the source of the energy requirement described above.
It should be noted that this zero net energy explanation couldn't reasonably be postulated for other than a recollapsing universe. However, as will be discussed further on, observational evidence has all but ruled out the possibility of the collapsing BB universe case, thus adding to the incredibility of zero net energy; and certainly it would seem that the positive energy of the potential, kinetic and the enormous mass equivalent energy of the of the universe must be far greater than the negative energy of its gravity. For any BB universe case the postulated zero net energy idea appears to be unrealistic.
Inflation theory,(3,4) which will be discussed further on, has claimed to solve the singularity problem (and other BB problems as well) but it requires an enormous quantum theory vacuum fluctuation(2) and, according to some, an enormous cosmic repulsive force to provide for a BB. These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
The Big Bang Never

The Big Bang Never Happened

 can you prove otherwise? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote:

dark_light wrote:
The Big Bang Never Happened

can you prove otherwise?

 

Yes.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest1.html

 

WMAP sattelite findings:

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

 

 [MOD EDIT - fixed link]

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
A message from the Mod

A message from the Mod Team:

dark_light, your posts have been plagarized from Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig. If you plaigarize again, you will be banned. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
The similarity of Big Bang

The similarity of Big Bang on to the creation of Genesis, both are finite in space and time, both  are from the void. And both, , are at odds with observation.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Joined:
deludedgod's picture
Joined: 2007-01-28

new

 


  A message from the stupid team of Mods

 

dark_light, your posts have been plagarized from Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig. If you plaigarize again, you will be banned.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
The Big Bang Never

The Big Bang Never Happened

 can you prove otherwise? 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: The Big

dark_light wrote:
The Big Bang Never Happened

can you prove otherwise?

Mods, sorry if I'm feeding the troll...

There's a good deal of evidence based on the expansion of the universe and observations of background radiation. Also, the big bang theory only explains things to a certain point. It does not attempt to describe before then. The whole point being that physics gets very strange and trying to talk about "before" could be meaningless.

Additionally, disproving one theory (in this case a falsifiable one) does not lend weight to another one (an unfalsifiable one, aka "Magic man done it!" ). This would be an argument from ignorance.

-Triften


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: The Big

dark_light wrote:
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question: "Where did everything come from?"

I believe the big bang isn't concerned with the source of energy, therefore it is not a problem.

Can nothing explode?

The big bang was not an explosion, but an expansion.
Quote:
This contradicts to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).

Does it? How do you know that the net energy in the universe is not zero?
Quote:

Where did Space, Time, Matter, and Energy come from?

See first answer.
Quote:

Next, how did this explosion / "expansion" cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

Again, it was no explosion. Second, because grew up in it, we would find this 'disorder' orderly.
Quote:

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

The laws of nature? Also note that the universe had less entropy than the singularity.
Quote:

The Universe didn’t all start from one point.

Correct, the big bang was everywhere in the universe.
Quote:

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

Correct.
Quote:

We know little or nothing about the moment of “Bang” itself.

Well, the big bang is an explanation of what happened after t=0...

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: The Big

Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light

dark_light wrote:
deludedgod's picture
Joined: 2007-01-28

new

 

A message from the stupid team of Mods

dark_light, your posts have been plagarized from Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig. If you plaigarize again, you will be banned.

Your post doesn't have anything to do with the warning.  You have only been a member here for one day and it certainly doesn't mean you aren't plaigarizing.

As for your comment about "stupid team of Mods", consider this your second warning because that was completely uncalled for.

{edited for clarity} 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote: The Big

dark_light wrote:
The Big Bang Never Happened

 can you prove otherwise? 

Pineapple already provided evidence.

We have OBSCENE amounts of evidence to support Big Bang models of the universe - cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's Law, Olber's Paradox, time dilation in super-novae light curves, etc.

 

Educate yourself before cutting and pasting from two individuals who's scientific credentials are limited to playing a high school student on television over a decade ago.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Evolution versus Creation

Evolution versus Creation part 1
by Dr. Hard Cash

For over 9 hundred years now a battle has been raging over the origin of the Universe and man. Soldiers of Science have drawn the battle lines with each side using various scientific and non - scientific theories as their weapons.
Who will ultimately win the war depends on who holds the most powerful weapons.
On one side we have the Evolutionists.
On the other side we have the Creationists.
Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation:
This is the belief that life came from non-living matter.
Creationists believe that life was created by an intelligent supernatural being ( God ).
Evolution: - depends on current scientific theories to show the origin of man and the universe. There is a problem with this: Science is constantly changing. Newer and different theories are always being formed concerning our origin.
When one theory is found to be false, another theory is quickly postulated to cover the first error.
For instance:
1 - Concentric theory - 15th century - taught that sun, planets revolved around the earth.
2 - Phlogiston theory - 17th - 18th century - taught that every substance that burns contained a mysterious ingredient called "Phlogiston". It was later shown to be oxygen.
3 - It was once an accepted scientific fact that mice came from dirty underwear.
Do you dare put your trust in a belief or a theory that is that fickle? You do if you believe in evolution!
The Evolutionists continue to build on shaky, ever shifting ground. Sometimes the ground that they build on is not even there.
As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there
No legs, no back, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that
Evolution, creation and geology (the study of the physical nature, history, development of the earth)
Man has believed, for most of his existence, that the earth was only a few thousand years old. But a new theory surfaced in the 19th century called "Uniformitarianism". This is the belief that nature can be explained by natural causes.
In other words, the complex structure of life that we have today slowly occurred over a long period of time. This changed the belief that instead of the earth being only a few thousand years old, it is now several billion years old (5) for that is how long it would take for the earth to develop if the theory of Uniformitarianism is true. Evolution was built merely on a supposition, but it was offered as fact; all the while Evolutionists went hunting for proof.
Evolution: - present is the key to the past
Creation: - past is the key to the present.
The Bible has warned us of the Evolutionist and his theories in II Peter 3: 3 - 6. Indeed, Peter even warns us that there would be those in the last days that would deny the Genesis flood!
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. "
Even though overwhelming evidence points to the absurdity and the extreme improbability of evolution, it is still printed in our public and college textbooks because many of our "modern" scientists are simply bound and determined never to admit that there is a God. For to admit that all life was supernaturally created (as will be shown here) would be to admit to the existence of a supernatural being.
Geologic column
Evolution is built upon a supposition - that creation exists by natural causes. Having started the supposition, they looked to nature to prove it. (This is circular reasoning)
Believing that evolution was a fact, geologists began to compile what is called a "geologic column. " This column is divided into strata:
horses, man, etc.
fossils found in this strata are:
65 million years old or younger

dinosaurs, pterodactyl, etc.
fossils found in this strata are:
225 million years or younger,
mostly lower forms of life
certain fish, insects, ferns, etc.
Fossils found in this strata are: 600 million years or younger
era
Problem: Nowhere in the world does this geologic column actually exist.
(only in the minds of some scientists)
Geologic column
More problems: Fossils have been found in the wrong strata!
Evolutionists try to explain it away by calling it a
Stratigraphic leak.
Even more problems: Huge thicknesses of whole strata are
Sometime found in the wrong order. How does the Evolutionist
Explain this? He calls it overthrusting.
Example: In glacier national park there is a block of what scientists call "Precambrian limestone" (they think it is one billion years old). It is sitting on top of a Cretaceous limestone formation (they think this is 1 million years old). These Evolutionists claim that this happened as a result of overthrusting.
Big problem!!! they often fail to mention that this block of limestone is about 350 miles long, 35 miles wide, and six miles thick!!! Overthrusting? Hardly!! No earthly force could accomplish this!
Recent findings that disprove the geologic column
Dinosaur prints have been found along with human footprints
In Mexico, new Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and other U. S. Locations.
In Arizona and Rhodesia, dinosaur pictographs have been found on cave and canyon walls by man.
An ancient Mayan sculpture has been found of a bird that resembles the Archaeopteryx. There is a 130 million year problem here. If the geologic column is correct, the two should have never met.
Job 40: 15 and Job 41: 1 - 34 explains that man lived alongside dinosaurs.
On June 1, 1968 in Utah, several trilobite fossils were found inside of the fossilized, footprint of a man who was wearing sandals.
But!!!!!!
According to the geologic column, the trilobites became extinct 230 million years before man came into existence!! Who are you going to believe?
Radioactive dating
There are several radioactive dating techniques that scientists use to calculate the age of rocks and fossils.
1 - Carbon - 14 - used to calculate the age of former living matter (into the thousands of years)
2 - Uranium - lead - used to calculate the age of the earth (into the millions, billions of years)
3 - Potassium argon
Problems:
Heating and deforming of rocks, percolation of water, exposure
To neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation will alter the rates
Of decay making these methods uselessEvolution versus Creation 


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Java ape man - - This is one

Java ape man - - This is one of the most famous of all the anthropoids. He was discovered in 1891 by Dr. Eugene duBois, a very fervent Evolutionist. This "ape man" was reconstructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth.
24 scientists met to evaluate this find:
10 said it was a man
7 said it was an ape
7 more had no idea (they believed that it belonged to a no longer missing link)
There were problems:
The bones that were used were not even together, they were scattered some 70 feet apart. They were not even found at the same time; it took a year to find these fragments. To make matters worse, these bones were found in an old river bed mixed in with the bones of extinct animals.
Question:
How can these scientists be certain that these bones all belonged to the same animal? If they were indeed 750, 000 years old and were not petrified, how did they last so long without disintegrating? How could you accurately reconstruct an entire skeleton with such tiny pieces of evidence?
Well, as it turns out, even Dr. DuBois, the finder himself, concluded that these were the bones of a gibbon. But it was already too late. The "reconstructed" skeleton was on display at a museum and college textbooks were already written singing the praises of this phony "ape man".
Parting shot:
Another of these Java "ape men" was discovered in 1926. This was another darling of the scientific community like the first one. This one turned out to be the knee bone of an extinct elephant.
4 - Piltdown man - - The remains of Piltdown man were supposedly found in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilogist. He produced some bones, teeth, and primitive tools, which he said he found in a gravel pit near Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took the remains to Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, an well known paleontologist at the British museum. These remains created a flurry of activity among scientists who immediately dated the remains at 500, 000 years old. Literature flooded the bookshelves as this was hailed as the most remarkable of all finds. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written on "Piltdown man". The great "missing link " was found!!
Or was it???
In October of 1956, the worst nightmare of the Evolutionist was about to happen. Reader's Digest came out with an article summarized from Popular Science monthly called "The Great Piltdown Hoax". Using a new method to date bones based upon fluoride absorption, the Piltdown man was found to be a fraud!! Further study revealed that the jaw-bone used in Piltdown man actually belonged to an ape that had died only 50 years previously. The teeth were filed down, and both teeth and bones were discolored with dichromate of potash.
The man who was responsible for placing the bones in the gravel pit was a man named Teilhard de Chardin S. J.
He had authored several books attempting to harmonize evolution with Christianity. Frustrated by the lack of evidence for Darwin's theory, he thought he would assist by inventing this "missing link".
How true Romans 1: 21 is when it says "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote:

dark_light wrote:
Evolution versus Creation part 1
by Dr. Hard Cash

For over 9 hundred years now a battle has been raging over the origin of the Universe and man. Soldiers of Science have drawn the battle lines with each side using various scientific and non - scientific theories as their weapons.
Who will ultimately win the war depends on who holds the most powerful weapons.
On one side we have the Evolutionists.
On the other side we have the Creationists.
Evolutionists believe in spontaneous generation:


This is the belief that life came from non-living matter.

Strike one: Conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

dark_light wrote:


Creationists believe that life was created by an intelligent supernatural being ( God ).

("Magic man done it!&quotEye-wink

First: please provide a coherent definition for "supernatural".

And where did thissupernatural being come from?

dark_light wrote:


Evolution: - depends on current scientific theories to show the origin of man and the universe. There is a problem with this: Science is constantly changing. Newer and different theories are always being formed concerning our origin.
When one theory is found to be false, another theory is quickly postulated to cover the first error.
For instance:
1 - Concentric theory - 15th century - taught that sun, planets revolved around the earth.
2 - Phlogiston theory - 17th - 18th century - taught that every substance that burns contained a mysterious ingredient called "Phlogiston". It was later shown to be oxygen.
3 - It was once an accepted scientific fact that mice came from dirty underwear.
Do you dare put your trust in a belief or a theory that is that fickle? You do if you believe in evolution!
The Evolutionists continue to build on shaky, ever shifting ground. Sometimes the ground that they build on is not even there.

We change what we think is true based on evidence. So sue us. As new evidence arises, we change. Instead of stubbornly ignoring the world around us.

dark_light wrote:


As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there
No legs, no back, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that

Strike two: slam poetry is not evidence.

dark_light wrote:


Evolution, creation and geology (the study of the physical nature, history, development of the earth)
Man has believed, for most of his existence, that the earth was only a few thousand years old. But a new theory surfaced in the 19th century called "Uniformitarianism". This is the belief that nature can be explained by natural causes.
In other words, the complex structure of life that we have today slowly occurred over a long period of time. This changed the belief that instead of the earth being only a few thousand years old, it is now several billion years old (5) for that is how long it would take for the earth to develop if the theory of Uniformitarianism is true. Evolution was built merely on a supposition, but it was offered as fact; all the while Evolutionists went hunting for proof.

This is the scientific method. You make a prediction (a hypothesis), then you perform experiments and examine evidence to see if it fits the hypothesis.

dark_light wrote:


Evolution: - present is the key to the past
Creation: - past is the key to the present.
The Bible has warned us of the Evolutionist and his theories in II Peter 3: 3 - 6. Indeed, Peter even warns us that there would be those in the last days that would deny the Genesis flood!
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. "

Please prove that the bible is true. It also claims that bats are birds and that insects have four legs. How can you trust the rest of it?

dark_light wrote:


Even though overwhelming evidence points to the absurdity and the extreme improbability of evolution, it is still printed in our public and college textbooks because many of our "modern" scientists are simply bound and determined never to admit that there is a God. For to admit that all life was supernaturally created (as will be shown here) would be to admit to the existence of a supernatural being.

Strike three: Evolution is not improbable. We have evidence that animals evolve all the time. We have witnessed new species arising. You may be conflating abiogenesis and evolution again.

Strike four: It would still beg the question of where this supernatural being came from.

Strike five: I probably should have given you this one at the start. Penalty for a false dichotomy. Even if evolution turns out to be false, it does not make creationism true.

dark_light wrote:


Geologic column
Evolution is built upon a supposition - that creation exists by natural causes. Having started the supposition, they looked to nature to prove it. (This is circular reasoning)

Again, the scientific method involves making a hypothesis, then observing the evidence.
dark_light wrote:


Believing that evolution was a fact, geologists began to compile what is called a "geologic column. " This column is divided into strata:
horses, man, etc.
fossils found in this strata are:
65 million years old or younger

dinosaurs, pterodactyl, etc.
fossils found in this strata are:
225 million years or younger,
mostly lower forms of life
certain fish, insects, ferns, etc.
Fossils found in this strata are: 600 million years or younger
era
Problem: Nowhere in the world does this geologic column actually exist.
(only in the minds of some scientists)

Strike six: Incorrect.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The Haymond beds of North Dakota are a prime example of this.

dark_light wrote:


Geologic column
More problems: Fossils have been found in the wrong strata!
Evolutionists try to explain it away by calling it a
Stratigraphic leak.

Please cite this claim.

dark_light wrote:


Even more problems: Huge thicknesses of whole strata are
Sometime found in the wrong order. How does the Evolutionist
Explain this? He calls it overthrusting.
Example: In glacier national park there is a block of what scientists call "Precambrian limestone" (they think it is one billion years old). It is sitting on top of a Cretaceous limestone formation (they think this is 1 million years old). These Evolutionists claim that this happened as a result of overthrusting.
Big problem!!! they often fail to mention that this block of limestone is about 350 miles long, 35 miles wide, and six miles thick!!! Overthrusting? Hardly!! No earthly force could accomplish this!

It's called plate tectonics. It makes mountain ranges and ocean trenches. It has no problem pushing 350 mile long, 35 mile wide, 6 mile thick hunks of rock.

The Atlantic ocean is widening by about (IIRC) 1 cm a year, so I think it can handle a little limestone.

Strike seven: argument from incredulity.

dark_light wrote:


Recent findings that disprove the geologic column
Dinosaur prints have been found along with human footprints
In Mexico, new Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, and other U. S. Locations.

In Arizona and Rhodesia, dinosaur pictographs have been found on cave and canyon walls by man.
An ancient Mayan sculpture has been found of a bird that resembles the Archaeopteryx. There is a 130 million year problem here. If the geologic column is correct, the two should have never met.

Please cite these claims.

The "human tracks" found in Paluxy River were merely partially bscured dinosaur footprints or, in one case, a deliberately altered track.

( Godfrey, L. R., 1985. Foot notes of an anatomist. Creation/Evolution 5(1): 16-36.)

dark_light wrote:


Job 40: 15 and Job 41: 1 - 34 explains that man lived alongside dinosaurs.

Again, please prove the bible to be true.

dark_light wrote:


On June 1, 1968 in Utah, several trilobite fossils were found inside of the fossilized, footprint of a man who was wearing sandals.
But!!!!!!
According to the geologic column, the trilobites became extinct 230 million years before man came into existence!! Who are you going to believe?

The supposed sandal print is actually a spall pattern in the rock. Also, it should be noted that the "print" is solitary and not part of a trail.

dark_light wrote:

 


Radioactive dating
There are several radioactive dating techniques that scientists use to calculate the age of rocks and fossils.
1 - Carbon - 14 - used to calculate the age of former living matter (into the thousands of years)
2 - Uranium - lead - used to calculate the age of the earth (into the millions, billions of years)
3 - Potassium argon
Problems:
Heating and deforming of rocks, percolation of water, exposure
To neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation will alter the rates
Of decay making these methods uselessEvolution versus Creation

These are all incorrect. If neutrino bombardment affected radiactive decay, we would have observed this inside nuclear reactors. If heating or deforming caused a change, we would see that in nuclear reators and in processing of nuclear fuel. The claim of water percolation affecting radiometric dating actually pertains to dating based on fission tracks with a crystal. If cosmic rays altered decay rates, we would have noticed this in our nuclear decay powered satellites.

Before you make another claim, you may want to check out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Again, trying to disprove evolution does not make Creationism true. Please provide evidence for Creationism.

-Triften


dark_light
dark_light's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Evolution versus Creationism

Evolution versus Creationism =
bullshit.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Good job, Triften. You've

Good job, Triften. You've just debunked two websites, quoted almost vebatim with a little paraphrasing.

 

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/inst23.htm

DEM BONES, DEM BONES THE NEBRASKA MAN

http://www.ishipress.com/creation.htm 

Evolution versus Creation by Dr. David W. Cash

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
dark_light was warned that

dark_light was warned that he would be banned if the plaigarism continued.

 

 


blackmath
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-04-14
User is offlineOffline
dark_light wrote:

dark_light wrote:
...the big bang theory. Basically it states that in the beginning there was nothing; no time, no, space, no matter, no dimensions.

The Big Bang theory only talks about what happened within our universe, nothing more. Who say's there's anything more ? Who says it's possible for 'nothing' to 'exist' ? Maybe it's impossible for nothing to exist. Maybe everything that can exist does exist, except for nothing. Maybe we're part of a larger structure...that's been the pattern of discovery so far. It may not even be meaningful to talk of there being a 'before'; without being infinitely old, the universe may yet have no 'beginning'. Creationists are fond of talking about impossible things like "what happened before time ?" and "what does the universe expand into ?". 

Here are some more silly questions: "where is the centre of the outside of a circle ?" and "what was this question about before this sentence began ?".

In the real universe we live in we see that spacetime is and was expanding. Add general relativity and thinking about the early moments of the universe becomes utterly mind-bending. I certainly don't understand it, but I know for certain that I would sooner listen to physicists, who have spent years studying the actual universe and the mathematics of it, than any of these shallow-thinking creationists who have the arrogance to just declare they know it all.


blackmath
Posts: 20
Joined: 2007-04-14
User is offlineOffline
actually that first silly

actually that first silly question isn't that silly if the circle is on a sphere.


The_Fragile
The_Fragile's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
I support the banning of

I support the banning of trolls! Laughing out loud


gborchardt
gborchardt's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Infinite Universe Theory

As many of you have pointed out, the Big Bang Theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (my Fifth Assumption of Science). It is a creationist theory pure and simple, dispite all the special pleading for it. The universe actually is infinite and eternal, as demonstrated in my new book, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (Understanding the Universal Mechanism of Evolution). I invite you all to visit www.thescientificworldview.com to check out the reviews and the new hour-long podcast from the infidelguy.com show.

 

Infinity forever,

Glenn Borchardt, Director
Progressive Science Institute
P.O. Box 5335
Berkeley, CA 94705

www.scientificphilosophy.com | gborchardt@gmail.com Supporting education in scientific philosophy free from religion and politics.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
gborchardt wrote: As many

gborchardt wrote:

As many of you have pointed out, the Big Bang Theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (my Fifth Assumption of Science). It is a creationist theory pure and simple, dispite all the special pleading for it.

How does the big bang break the first law?  It doesn't unless you are adding more to the big bang theory then it pruposes. 

Big bang theory doesn't explain where the singularity came from, or how long it existed.  There is nothing in the theory that says the universe couldn't have been in a singularity state for infinity before it, or that the process of the big bang couldn't have happened an infinite number of times before as part of some recycling of all the matter, energy and space-time in the unvierse. 

Do you deny the existence of black holes? 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As many of you have pointed

As many of you have pointed out, the Big Bang Theory violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (my Fifth Assumption of Science). It is a creationist theory pure and simple, dispite all the special pleading for it. The universe actually is infinite and eternal, as demonstrated in my new book, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein (Understanding the Universal Mechanism of Evolution). I invite you all to visit www.thescientificworldview.com to check out the reviews and the new hour-long podcast from the infidelguy.com show.

It doesn't...Alan Guth showed it in his mathematical models. The infinite universe theory, on the other hand breaks the second law. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


gborchardt
gborchardt's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Infinite Universe Theory

Both comments are addressed thoroughly in The Scientific Worldview.