Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[sneezer3]

i'l reply latter but let me say this for now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ introduces 29 "evidences" for macroevolution showing that it does in fact happen, but what comes into question is how it happens, the mechanisms of evolution.

Please cut too the chaise, i can't read though all that, quote and show me what they found or get a link to exactly what they are talking about.

Evedence it proff ot something, do they have any evedence for what they say there or just wild assumptions and words?

[Acriku]

Evidence for macroevolution can't simply be typed and explained in little amount of words. If you really want to know, then read some of it, not all of it - not even I read all of it. You wanted evidence, I gave you a link for your answer and expected you to atleast read one paragraph about it, it really is interesting. And no not wild assumptions, scientific facts and observations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

[sneezer3]

Evidence for macroevolution can't simply be typed and explained in little amount of words. If you really want to know, then read some of it, not all of it - not even I read all of it. You wanted evidence, I gave you a link for your answer and expected you to atleast read one paragraph about it,

Then it still remains unproven,

Maybe its just my stupidty, but i don't see anything on there that can "prove" it therefore it is belived by faith, i'm not saying it shouldn't be tought, just be tought as a THEORY, nothing else, the same with the Big Bang. what people claim they have seen is irrlvent, it remains unproven.

[sg]

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

[sneezer3]

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

Well that link dosn't say anything about maco-evolution but.

The Big Bang is not possable. i'l quote my arguement i made earlyer.

-The Rotation of the Earth

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing due to the gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon and other factors. If the earth is billions of years old, as uniformitarian geologists insist, and it has been slowing down uniformly, then its present rotation should be zero! Furthermore, if we extrapolate backward for several billion years, the centrifugal force would have been so great that the continents would have been sent to the equatorial regions and the overall shape of the earth would have been more like a flat pancake. But, as is commonly known, the shape of the earth is spherical; its continents are not confined to the equatorial regions, and it continues to rotate on its axis at approximately 1,000 mph at the equator. The obvious conclusion is that the earth is not billions of years old.

[Dude_Doc]

Everything we know is theory. Nothing is prooven. We say that theories becomes fact because there has been no countered. Some facts are so accurate, gravitation, time etc, that people saying those things must be crazy. Still, this is our planet, one planet. We haven't been in another galaxy..., heck, we don't even know our own galaxy...

[Nyarlathotep]

This discussion will never end. People believe in something, or they don't. There's no way you can change one's believe via a thread like this. Most of you provide "proof" which you believe in. When you do, you must understand that another person may look at it from a whole other perspective.

Me personally, I do not believe in God, I more believe in something else. But I can see where both sides are comng from.

[emprworm]

i am not trying to change anyone's views, i just have fun exposing them. he he.

[Dunenewt]

lol, Mike likes starting arguements he thinks it makes him popular

[Nyarlathotep]

i am not trying to change anyone's views, i just have fun exposing them. he he.

Let me just say that I see things differently. It's not just you though...

[Acriku]

Sneezer it's already proven, whether you read the link or not. I don't think it changes anything lol.

The big bang is taught as a theory, and that's good because there isn't enough evidence to support it. But if you actually look at the facts and/or take an advanced biology course (like college), then you will find proof for evolution. It isn't proof you believe in, it's scientific proof. I believe in it as much as I believe in the theory of gravity. Evolution happens, get over it. What we should really be debating on is how it happened. A good theory is the natural selection, which I am reading about now in Origin of Species. I think this is plausible, as many observations point to it. But it's impossible right now to study/observe it, so we must be patient and work with what we have.

But if you want to stay on topic, let's talk about your argument against the big bang theory. First of all, and no offense, but please do not claim being the author for an argument, which is so obviously not your's. As for the argument, what makes you think it should be zero? What formula did you use? This is just like the "moon dust theory" that it should be so-and-so deep when it is only inches deep. Incorrect data leads to incorrect conclusions. Tell me what data you have taken and the formulas you have used to come to 0. The earth for its 4 billion and a half years life, probably slows down 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years, as said in http://pages.prodigy.com/suna/earth.htm but this is being debated on since the atomic timekeepers change it more often, I don't know how much more often but more than 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years. It is a phenomena that scientists are working to figure out, and in no way does it disprove the big bang theory, because after all if it did we wouldn't be talking about it now would we! ;)

[SurlyPIG]

Ok I finally have time to post here. I'm having trouble reading all the forums...I get a parse error message partway through some of the pages...including this one. I'll do my best to remember what was posted and reply to most of the important stuff...

In response to sneezer aka Captain Kirk? Your rebuttals to my...pointing out flaws and/or contradictions in the structure of God's relationship with the universe was speculated based on how you interpret his intent. For instance, I would ask how/why a perfect, incorruptable being can make design such an easily corrupt species. You believe you said that he designed us perfectly and we lost that pefection. Well, part of being perfect is the inability to fall from perfection. For instance, diamonds are the perfect mineral for crushing/cutting other minerals. Part of this is that they are static. They don't change. A diamond won't suddenly cease to be perfect, because if it did, it wouldn't be perfect in the first place.

One of two things happened when God created humans, as written in the bible (I wasn't always an atheist you know) [NOTE : This is based on the postulation that humanity is an imperfect creation]

1) God designed man with the intention of creating an imperfect species for whatever motive.

2) God attempted to design man as perfect, but failed thus He is imperfect himself as he made a mistake.

The trouble with your speculation about God's will is that it is ungrounded. You can't read God's journal or tell what he was thinking when He made is alleged actions. This is one of the biggest causes of religous atrocities - people attempting to INTERPRET the will of an omnipotent being. Burning "witches", who were no more than herbalistic healing women, at the stake is one example. Mayan human sacrifice rituals is another. George Bush saying "God is on our side" at his state of the nation speech is another good one. I was reminded of how the Germans often said that in WWI.

In response to emprworm, your three options don't really fit my...total guesstimate of how the universe began. I fully acknowledge that there I don't even believe what I think the most likely origin of the universe is. This is why I call it a total guesstimate. Be wary that there is no one 'atheist theory' on the origins of the universe...I think whoever said that universii pop out of nowhere for no reason is as loopy as you do.

Like Nema pointed out, we might trace the universe all the way back to microseconds after the big bang, but what, if anything, preceeded the big bang, cannot be known. But I can guess...(I would like to clarify that in know way to I readilly practice this and in know way do I put any faith into it)

My best guess is that a different natural universe preceeded the current one. For whatever reason, that universe converged at a definate point, and there was a massive exposion, the big bang, forming a new universe with new laws of physics and rules of engagement. Perhaps new substances too. Perhaps changed. Perhaps the same. Maybe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation were different. Maybe they were inversed.

Naturally impossible you say? Absolutely. In a way, it belings in category number one because it was "caused" by what is currently natural.

In another way, it belongs in category two because the universe is different from the one preceeding universe in its laws and its realm of possibility.

In yet another way, it belongs in category three because one might argue that it is essentially the same universe cyclically repeating itself in different ways. So in a way it is enternal :O

However such a wild theory is baseless and should NEVER be assumed as fact as many assume their theories to be true. The creationist theists with their ID, and that wacko atheist universe popcorn guy. Jumping to assume the supernatural has proven foolish, and those to jump are made to look foolish by history (and I'm not picking on theists - that atheist guy's popcorn theory is supernatural too in my books). For instance, people in early times believed that disease was the act of God punishing sinners and sinning communities and cultures. A priest said that what happened on 9/11 was the USA being punished for becoming morally decadent, tolerating homosexuality and other religions etc. He was justly and publicly scrutinized in a humiliating fashion and his reputation took an appropreate beating. We must not be so quick to jump to supernatural conclusions for things we cannot yet explain in the world around us. For instance, sneezer said that because he cannot understand why protons (like-positive charges) don't violently repel each other, he assumed it was the design of God.

Lastly, Edric has asked me not to overly-generalize Christians and I've done my best not to because it's unfair...Many people interpret their religous texts differently. I would ask that you not include me in the same philosophic category as acriku, the popcorn guy, Earthnuker, etc. because there is no structure to how atheists view the world, other than the elimination of but one single outlook (adeity).

[sneezer3]

Sneezer it's already proven, whether you read the link or not. I don't think it changes anything lol.

The big bang is taught as a theory, and that's good because there isn't enough evidence to support it. But if you actually look at the facts and/or take an advanced biology course (like college), then you will find proof for evolution. It isn't proof you believe in, it's scientific proof. I believe in it as much as I believe in the theory of gravity. Evolution happens, get over it. What we should really be debating on is how it happened.

Macro Evolution does not happen, that link (as far as i know) they don't have any proof. As for the "proof" there, there is a lot of stuff they take out of those books that disproves it. It can be found in a book by someone named Thomas F. Heinze called how life begen

If macro evolution is proven then your Rich!! ;D

Ok I finally have time to post here. I'm having trouble reading all the forums...I get a parse error message partway through some of the pages...including this one. I'll do my best to remember what was posted and reply to most of the important stuff...

In response to sneezer aka Captain Kirk? Your rebuttals to my...pointing out flaws and/or contradictions in the structure of God's relationship with the universe was speculated based on how you interpret his intent. For instance, I would ask how/why a perfect, incorruptable being can make design such an easily corrupt species. You believe you said that he designed us perfectly and we lost that pefection. Well, part of being perfect is the inability to fall from perfection. For instance, diamonds are the perfect mineral for crushing/cutting other minerals. Part of this is that they are static. They don't change. A diamond won't suddenly cease to be perfect, because if it did, it wouldn't be perfect in the first place.

One of two things happened when God created humans, as written in the bible (I wasn't always an atheist you know) [NOTE : This is based on the postulation that humanity is an imperfect creation]

1) God designed man with the intention of creating an imperfect species for whatever motive.

2) God attempted to design man as perfect, but failed thus He is imperfect himself as he made a mistake.

The trouble with your speculation about God's will is that it is ungrounded. You can't read God's journal or tell what he was thinking when He made is alleged actions. This is one of the biggest causes of religous atrocities - people attempting to INTERPRET the will of an omnipotent being. Burning "witches", who were no more than herbalistic healing women, at the stake is one example. Mayan human sacrifice rituals is another. George Bush saying "God is on our side" at his state of the nation speech is another good one. I was reminded of how the Germans often said that in WWI.

It's not who's side is God on, but rather who's side are we on. ;)

AS for how do i know this stuff, well, i read the Bible, you can tell a persons motive by his actions.

"John 15:13

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

There are other ways you know, Like "In the Begining God crated the heavens and the earth" For Example.

oh yeah.

1: God did not make man with the intentions of us being imperfect, he knew we would blow it and he gave us a choice and we did.

2: he did not "attempt" to and fail, he did but didn't make us mindless robots, or sent to hell forever if one person sined once.(whoever he/she might be) he did but gave us a choice of good and evil as is we where perfect back then.

If you want an explanation at lots of so called "conterdictions" go to

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video

and download the seventh free video. or

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles

go to the conterdictions section. One word, Big list, eh, well two words but one thought. :D

did we wouldn't be talking about it now would we! ;)

as for the the data, i'l get it for you if i can, but it does not effect the arguement which therefore makes it impossable.

it is impossable for us to have "evolved" with the Big Bang + Evolution due to the arguement presented.

As emprworm puts it, imperfection will always be inferior to perfection (I think he said this or something like this), so if you become perfect through Jesus you are then superior. Don't you feel super?

As for an arguement presented earlyer.

You are not a better being, you are still a siner, They might have atvanteges over you in stuff like math, and i wouldn't put a value on a Humen Being, to do so is alomost crule, and you might be "inferior" in some ways.

If i where you i wouldn't go around calling people "inferior" Not at lest untill you have been to boot camp :D ;)

Last of all, check this out and see why the earth is not "billions" of years old.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2

[Dude_Doc]

Once, I played with the thought that God did not create us, but another race.... I considered so because the aliens must have had better technology, if they'd really been here (I believed in aliens, first contacts, abductions... plain X-files you know...). Why else would they have such good technology? But this also scared me... then whatever we did wouldn't affect us in any way, because we would still die and become nothing, we wouldn't have souls and so on... so in the end, God would exist, but He wouldn't be our God.

I quit thinking about that, now when I grew up...

[Acriku]

sneezer I take it you have not read a single paragraph in that link, or you just don't understand it all? You are using your faith to answer for you, and that is bad my son. Repent! Repent for not using the noggin you were graciously given!

[sneezer3]

sneezer I take it you have not read a single paragraph in that link, or you just don't understand it all? You are using your faith to answer for you, and that is bad my son. Repent! Repent for not using the noggin you were graciously given!

lol easy way to dismissing the rest of the arguements.

the evedence is insuffent see theCreationists answer. Preety much all of his disscussion just looks at animals and how they evoloved. no direct evedence, Macro evoulution should be tought as a theroy. not as a fact.

Speaking of animals have you ever heard of the archer fish? Read more Here! just scrool down some. or click "edit" then "find on this page" on your browser. its about middle ways though.

Oh yeah, and feel free to wonder around the rest of the site! ;)

[Acriku]

What arguments? That I'm rich? Oh yes I should have replied to that.

The first link is pretty good, but doesn't do anything to evolution, just go to this link - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html :) Camp is using logical fallacies galore, but it's a good attempt though.

The second link is totally hilarious, they try to show how evolution could not have occurred because of certain organisms, like this:

But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved! It would be a lot like trying to change a bus into a submarine one part at a time, all the while it is traveling at 60 miles per hour.

What evidence supports this? None! This is pure speculation, and doesn't amount to anything. You must use science to disprove scientific theories, not speculation. Oh the theory of gravity is false because some things float. Yep.

[sneezer3]

i'l reply latter. :)

[SurlyPIG]

That is the most ludacris site I've ever seen. What a great example of the sheer stupidity that can get on the net. I looked at three of those pages and didn't see a single arguement that wasn't completely unfounded, not a single allegory that was flawed in design, and a single "fact" that wasn't taken completely out of context, warped and twisted, and used for personal gain. Not only that but the Camp guy practiced every single "underhanded tactic" that he accused Theobald of.

My favourite part; "The Earth can't be billions of years old 'cause the layer of dust on the moon is too thin." ROFL.

[Navaros]

There is no nor has there ever been any proof of "evolution". In fact, any credible scientist will tell you that "evolution" is one of the most silly things they've ever heard about.

"Evolution" is mostly rejected by the scientific community these days because it is unscientific, outright contrary to science, and the required scientific tests to validate any theory enough for it to be called a "theory" can not be applied to "evolution"; ie: Achieving the same result repeatedly with tests that can be universally repeated and that yield identical results each and every time in order to "prove" a theory enough for it to be valid as a theory.

Which is one of the most basic scientific principles required to validate any legit theory about anything and this principle is almost universally accepted and required by all scientists for every theory -yet somehow "evolution" is exempt?

That is just *one* of many required scientific principles which "evolution" violates.

Furthermore, "evolution" is genetically and scientifically impossible. If the genetic makeup of a creature is changed "naturally", the only thing that an happen is for certain genetic information to be "lost" over time. For example, this is why some peole have dark skin and other do not. The genes of the people who have light skin have lost the genetic pigmentation data over time and hence their skin is not dark. On a sidenote: that totally proves that Hitler was loony because of anything, people with light skin are genetically *inferior* to those who did not lose the genetic pigmentation data. LOL

However, new genetic information can never be naturally *gained* over time, as "evolution" requires. If it was never there to begin with, genetic data can never be added naturally. Genes may lose information and hence the creatures might become "downgraded", but never upgraded. Again, any credible scientist will verify this information in a much more qualified way than I am able to.

It is a crime against humanity that kids are taught this ludicrous concept in schools, "evolution", and an even bigger crime against humanity that it is presented as total fact. Fact is, "evolution" is nothing but total bollocks and the teaching of it should be illegal, esp. in schools and so-called "educational" institutions.

[Acriku]

How old are you? 14? Surely with a highschool education you would realize how erroneous your post is.

First off, there is proof of evolution, even creationists in here agree, even though they specify microevolution having proof, this is proof for evolution nonetheless. You have no proof of the claim that any credible scientist will you that "evolution is one of the most silly things they've ever heard about." And frankly, I find this amusing, because you are claiming something so outrightly false, that it brings the credibility of your next arguments into question! But let's go on...

It is not mostly rejected by the scientific community, this is again a claim without any evidence whatsoever, and is a pretty strong claim - which must be brought with proof. It has none, because it isn't true. Evolution is still the best existing theory conscerning the development of life. It is not unscientific, you just do not understand it. Evolution is not on a set path, in this case it cannot achieve the same results over and over. The fact is, that evolution would actually occur every time, and this is what is is achieved each time.

One of many? Oh do tell us more.

Evolution is profoundly genetically and scientifically possible. You must have a little more than basic understanding in genetics, heredity, and biology to comprehend its possibility. The mutations that occur prior to conception (an organism cannot evolve after conception, which many people do not know) is simply the changing of nucleic and amino acids, information added or lost isn't added or lost in the same sense that money is added or lost. You change a nucleotide, and during translation the tRNA (anticodon) will code for different amino acids, creating different polypeptides that are functioned to create different enzymes that functions for the phenotypes of the alleles. This is a common misconception of the genetics of evolution. And skin color is polygenic, meaning different alleles generate towards the same phenotype, such as skin color and eye color. Not just one set of alleles code for skin color, different ones do. One codes for whether or not pigmentation is expressed, and another how much, for example one may have an allele to express a good deal of pigmentation, making him a black person, but also has the allele for not expressing pigmentation (lacking enzyme that produces it, melanin) and thus albinism.

You must check your facts and statements before arguing, thanks.

[sneezer3]

That is the most ludacris site I've ever seen. What a great example of the sheer stupidity that can get on the net. I looked at three of those pages and didn't see a single arguement that wasn't completely unfounded, not a single allegory that was flawed in design, and a single "fact" that wasn't taken completely out of context, warped and twisted, and used for personal gain. Not only that but the Camp guy practiced every single "underhanded tactic" that he accused Theobald of.

My favourite part; "The Earth can't be billions of years old 'cause the layer of dust on the moon is too thin." ROFL.

I have reserched into that site, and they have a a reputation of giveing one sided storys.

They have picked people bad for arguements in the past, and at least pick someone creditable.

There are two possablitys.

#1 they pick out a bunch of quacks, and very have wited people. possabely kids that don't understand things fully.

#2 They make up the arguements and people, there is no Mr, Camp nor anybody but the Evolutionests.

Now beofore you go to tell me i'm jumping to conclusions, check out what i found.

Lets start will a easy criticism. They pick someone who thinks the sun goes around the earth. to write one of their article on astronomy.

Lets take a look at the misquoteations, makes me dought even more this is done by Creationists, because i have never seen that done before anywhere else. i seen slight misquoteations by mistake of Evolutionests, but not even them very deep misquoteations. Thatmy good freind, is a sad thing to give a one-sided story.

lets take a look. at one of them.

See the

refuteal of the arguements taken out of context and it was made in 2000!

I could go on but i think you get the picture. but i serously dought those people are Creationests if they exist.

EDIT oh yeah, about the arguements i'm working on it. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Acriku, if someone isn't so big as you, it doesn't mean he's stupid.

For living forms you can use evolution of some little changes. But most were done by some harder hits, I think 6 times something caused rapid extinction of 90% of all kinds of lifeforms. Then is evolution too slow to make new. Not saying that Darwin's "stronger wins" would cause much less diversity as it is today in nature. Microbiologists, trying to find source of life, are also sceptic about it. Any stone cannot just "start to live". In one book I've read interesting comparement: "possibility of creating life by some composition of organical substances is like composition of Jumbo Jet from nuclear explosion." ;D

[Acriku]

I know caid, I was in the mood to be mean :) But I didn't mean anything by it.

Yes there was some period in history where most of the organisms have died, but remember not all of them were at once. And once most of them died, it allowed organisms to change (adapt) to the less amount of predators, or prey, etc, and thus evolution continues. Evolution isn't too slow, why in half a decade a population can change variably and corresponding to the environment and allele frequencies. That comparison is far-stretched, just somebody's opinion.

[emprworm]

I know caid, I was in the mood to be mean :) But I didn't mean anything by it.

Yes there was some period in history where most of the organisms have died, but remember not all of them were at once. And once most of them died, it allowed organisms to change (adapt) to the less amount of predators, or prey, etc, and thus evolution continues. Evolution isn't too slow, why in half a decade a population can change variably and corresponding to the environment and allele frequencies. That comparison is far-stretched, just somebody's opinion.

a nice story. like a bedtime fable.