Print

[impokinya]

QUOTE (Evolution_X_master @ Apr 25 2004, 05:59 PM)

I say we all just believe in God...I mean say the big bang is true, and this "bang" came from dust...well i'd say God put it there. "In the begging God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1 We need to all reflect on that passage...

who is God... where did he come from... why/how does he exist?  there is no proof of the big bang... no proof of the existance of God and no proof of anything else... the only time we're going to find out what the truth is, is when we die... and maybe not even then.

[Evolution_X_master]

[green_beetle]

QUOTE (iwinulose @ Apr 25 2004, 10:30 PM)

about the something from nothing: the big bang theory states that a little ball of dense matter (all of the matter in the universe) exploded and created "dust" all overt the place. this "dust" condenced and formed planets, moons, stars ect. so ur not creating something from nothing it was here all the time i believe the big bang theory some what, some things just dont make sense but it does have a strong foot hole

all matter in space came together. gases hydrogem and helium were formed and created a giant ball then exploded.

but the question is where did space come from?

[Banj]

QUOTE (Evolution_X_master @ Apr 26 2004, 11:18 PM)

Darwin: He believed that when you do something so much you change youself For Example: A giraffe(back when it had a short neck, according to Darwin) stretched his neck to reach leaves on a tree. After along time it gain a long neck.

That's not what Darwin supposed. If Giraffes all had short necks then Natural Selection suggests that the Giraffes with longer necks find it easier to feed from trees and therefore are more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce and more likely to pass on thier 'long neck' genes.

As for the Big Bang, just because it employs accepted physics it doesn't make it a fact. As someone said, it's called a thoery for a reason and the only fact is that at this moment in time the universe is expanding in a way that would suggest the Big Bang Theory. The same physicist said that energy cannot be created, only redirected, that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. Yet, the same fucker says that the stars on the outer reaches of the universe are accelerating on thier trajectory. Surely this is a contradiction. It is explained with "the cause of which is not yet understood".......well, fuck me.

500 years ago everyone knew the earth was flat, and just because you're in a wheelchair it doesn't make you right.



Thank you and goodnight.

[Rylinkus]

QUOTE (Arvarden @ Apr 26 2004, 01:47 PM)

You should see the hair on my dads back tbh

You should see the hair on my back.... It's not a pretty site. Though I could go into the wig business I suppose......


I think I'm going to adhere to the belief that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is correct. If you don't know what this theory is, read the book. No spoilers here.  

[BloodyMary]

When the whole fucking thing explodes, I'll be there to watch you all die...

[bong888]

QUOTE (sk8ermike6789 @ Apr 26 2004, 10:25 PM)

yes, its called the "MISSING link" for a reason

For what reason?
in physics there does not hav to be any reason!
it's nothing more than a Widely belivieved Assumption

the same as alot of other things could be

in this day and age it is very hard to seperate fact from fiction.

[therebelious1]

below is a link to a lecture by Prof Hawking if anyone wants to read informed theories- its really easy to understand and interesting

http://www.hawking.o...ctures/bot.html

below is a quote from a dumb person:

QUOTE

500 years ago everyone knew the earth was flat, and just because you're in a wheelchair it doesn't make you right.

Prof Hawking is a scientist- he tries to construct theories to explain observations. no scientific theory is ever taken as truth- every time its proven correct, it gets a bit more credibility, if on any occasion it is proven incorrect, the theory is thrown out. the idea that Prof Hawking thinks he's right because he's in a wheelchair is fucking stupid.

heres Prof Hawking's Homepage
http://www.hawking.org.uk/
he's selling his baloon basket if anyone is interested

[bgrill27]

The second law of thermodynamics states that: the world is in a constant state of order to disorder. Also, no transitional forms have ever been found- of any species! All these "hominds" and "austrolapinthesis" are a partial skull cap and then  a jaw bone found 100 miles away that are put together.

[therebelious1]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 01:51 PM)

Yes, scientists believe "nothing exploded and created everything."  Where did that little ball of dense material come from?  Had to come from somewhere!  And who put it there?  Both the Evolution theory and the creation theory all depend on the same thing, faith.  And if you would like to BELIEVE in the evolution theory, that is perfectly fine by me.  But dont spend MY tax dollars teaching it as FACT in the school's.  Don't believe me?  Check out some of the science textbooks in YOUR city.  Those books teach Evolution as FACT, that it really happened.  That is an outright lie, and I would think even diehard Evolutionist's would agree with me that passing off something as fact, when in reality is only a theory, is 100% wrong.

you contradict yourself, and you're wrong!

you say:
scientists believe "nothing exploded and created everything"
and:
Where did that little ball of dense material come from?



scientists, proper scientists dont believe anything- they see and they try to explain what they see, then try to prove their explanations, if it works out, the explanations are given credibility, if not then the explanations are obviously wrong

a possible explanation for where the "little ball of dense material" came from is held in the link i posted previously:

QUOTE

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

everything depends on what you personally believe
if you believe the sun is green then good for you
i chose to believe scientists, people who use evidence to support their claims
unlike some religeous fucks who take offence when actual science is taught in classrooms

no modern scientist or science teacher says anything is cold hard fact anymore- i challange you to post evidence from a text book which is in use in a school today that says that the theory of evolution is a fact

[falser]

QUOTE (bong888 @ Apr 26 2004, 11:59 AM)

So what has become of what ever we evolved from? will monkeys ever evlove into humans, if so when? will humans ever turn into mokeys? we have a simular anatonmy to the monkey that is all , which is not suprising looking @ a monkey life style. why is there no half way point? there are monkeys and humans no inbetween

You obviously have no concept of Evolution.  It's clearly pointed out in every single bit of evolutionary science that the theory is that man and ape came from a common ancestor.  Not that monkeys turned into humans, or that humans will turn into monkeys.   Where do you get this type of information from?  Unfortunately scientists don't have the luxury of story book written by apostles to tell them what to believe so they must study nature to figure it out.  Since the common ancestor no longer exist (ie: extinct) we have only the commonality between monkeys and humans, and the fossil record to show that any link existed in the past.

As for the Big Bang - it's the best working theory we have for the creation of our universe.  It doesn't involve any magic, or a man in the clouds, it can be calculated, and theorized on, and tested.  Until further evidence debunks the theory there's no reason to believe it never happened unless you have religious bias against science.  The Big Bang Theory doesn't attempt to explain what happened before it occured or why because those elements cannot be tested.  Instead it concentrates on events that took place after it occured.  I'm pretty sure they have calculated what happened (size of the universe etc) back to about 1 millionth of a second after the big bang occured.  The theory is way beyond "just a guess" or a story, it's a scientifically testable theory.

[chuddy117]

QUOTE (therebelious1 @ Apr 27 2004, 02:09 PM)

no modern scientist or science teacher says anything is cold hard fact anymore- i challange you to post evidence from a text book which is in use in a school today that says that the theory of evolution is a fact

I dont have to, look in ANY textbook, ANYWHERE.  The kids these days are taught outdated evolutionary material as fact that have been proven wrong, sometimes hundreds of years ago.  Some examples are Miller's experiments with creating life in the lab, the horse evolution graph, and Ernst Haeckel's embryo's...just to name a few.

[therebelious1]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 02:33 PM)

I dont have to, look in ANY textbook, ANYWHERE.  The kids these days are taught outdated evolutionary material as fact that have been proven wrong, sometimes hundreds of years ago.  Some examples are Miller's experiments with creating life in the lab, the horse evolution graph, and Ernst Haeckel's embryo's...just to name a few.

millers experiments: ok, proven bullshit- but which medieval school for fucktards teaches that shit?

horse evolution: a bit vague- some dumb people think horses evolved from foxes

Ernst Haeckel: his work was only recently (1997) proven utter bullshit.

honestly dude, are these schools you are talking about still teaching that the earth is the center of the universe? that the world is infact flat? that the human body cant withstand speeds of above 5mph? and that all things are made up of earth fire air and water?

i went to school not that long ago, (1988 to 2000) and some things i got taught then are not defunct now (like we were taught that electrons, neutrons and protons were divisible, but it was unknown into what). i have the intelligence to know that scientific understanding is dynamic- it progresses. i also understand that teaching kids whats going on at the bleeding edge of science is pointless.

if infact the school you are referring to is actually teaching millers experiments in the present day and age, then its the competance of the teachers which is in question- not science (and there is a difference- a huge difference- between scientists and teachers)

[therebelious1]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 02:36 PM)

And whats wrong with an Intelligent Design theory?  Besides, how do the scientists come up with these "billions of years ago" theories.  How do you think they come up with these numbers?

by looking at the red shift in the light shining from distant stars

google it (doppler effect) for 10 minutes and you see that along with this, every modern scientific finding must have evidence to back it up- this aint the bloody dark ages dude

as for "intelligent design" well thats just a theory with no evidence to back it up

just like my theory:
"humans dont have two legs and two arms, they have wheels and catterpillar tracks"

edit: typos

[falser]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 02:33 PM)

The kids these days are taught outdated evolutionary material as fact that have been proven wrong, sometimes hundreds of years ago.

Strange then that you fail to see the flawed logic in teaching Sunday school children about Genesis and Noah's Ark.

By the way chuddy117, therebelious1 only touched the surface.  They can calculate the age of the Earth using a variety of ways - and you may not believe it - but there is a very odd coincidence about every way it can be done.  They almost all result in the Earth's age to be around 4 billion years.  That's not just one or 2 select experiments - but nearly every single way you can calculate the age of the Earth accurately results in about 4 billion years.  You can read this article for information about it and explanations for experiments that don't result in proper age results.