Darwin's False Religion

MAC1 said:
This God role in evolution is referred to as "theistic evolution." To say that God could have had an active role in evolution contradicts its very definition since evolution is based on random 'mutations' and 'natural selection' over hundreds of millions of years. In other words, God would have to control all the circumstances surrounding the evolutionary chain of events, including what mutation takes place and when. Moreover, God would have to assume control of all other facets and forces involved with evolution, including Earth's geography, the weather, volcanic events and, most importantly, which life form lives or dies at a given point in time in order that the living can propagate the next and slightly more evolved generation.

Because evolution relies purely on unpredictable random events it is simply a ridiculous proposition to contend that it somehow leaves the door open to the possibility of God having merely an active role instead of the only role.

First and foremost, God would not have to control all circumstances as you put it, God as is, is abstract and does not have to do anything or abide by any laws of the universe as we know them. Why must God follow the path you set out as you set it out? A (another) question that TommyB laid out above that has yet to be answered, 'Why single out Genesis to take literally; word for word without any room for interpretation?' What if God laid the foundations for evolution to proceed and let the cards falls where they may? Not saying that is how it happened, just another possibility in an ocean of possibilities. Point being, evolution does not deny God.
 
fossten said:
Now that is just an absurd argument. If the universe was formed the way YOU EVOLUTIONISTS believe, there must have been uniformity of age. There's no other way to slice time, Mr. H.G. Wells. Nice try. Otherwise, explain how Saturn itself was formed AFTER the Big Bang. :bowrofl:
I'm pressed for time, but I just have to address this. Are you under the impression that COSMOLOGISTS believe that everything, including our sun and the planets formed immediately after the big bang and that everything is the exact same age? If so, then we're done talking, because you don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of the big bang model.

The universe is thought to be around 15 billion years old. Our solar system didn't form until about 5 billion years ago. There are new stars and planets forming at this moment, while others have long since burnt out. There are many theories for Saturn's rings and not all of them require the rings to have been formed at the same time as Saturn itself. So the argument that the rings are relatively young has no bearing on the age of Saturn or the solar system whatsoever.

Seriously, try reading something that doesn't come directly off of answersingenesis.com. There is a whole wide world of information out there that isn't tainted by religious preconceptions.
 
TommyB said:
I'm pressed for time, but I just have to address this. Are you under the impression that COSMOLOGISTS believe that everything, including our sun and the planets formed immediately after the big bang and that everything is the exact same age? If so, then we're done talking, because you don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of the big bang model.

The universe is thought to be around 15 billion years old. Our solar system didn't form until about 5 billion years ago. There are new stars and planets forming at this moment, while others have long since burnt out. There are many theories for Saturn's rings and not all of them require the rings to have been formed at the same time as Saturn itself. So the argument that the rings are relatively young has no bearing on the age of Saturn or the solar system whatsoever.

Seriously, try reading something that doesn't come directly off of answersingenesis.com. There is a whole wide world of information out there that isn't tainted by religious preconceptions.

I've read more books on evolution than you've ever dreamed of. Why don't you try reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe before you go off un-cocked again? answersingenesis.org simply has information readily available, and it isn't "tainted" (pejorative, contemptuous condescending word always used by evolutionists) by anything. It uses science, something I have yet to see you do in this thread. All you've done, especially in this last post, is make assertions without backing them up with evidence.

As far as the age of the universe goes, you can't get to first base in proving it.

Speaking of Cosmology and the Big Bang model, why don't you check this out:

Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt!

Nearly 100 years since Einstein’s theories were published, the origin and structure of the universe still eludes cosmologists
by John Hartnett

On 23 July 2002, NYTimes.com hosted an article entitled “In the Beginning …” by Dennis Overbye. This was an attempt to put down any belief that science doesn’t have the answers, i.e. it was a defence of scientism. The article pushes the point that even though, in the past, cosmologists may have been divided and lost on explanations of the origin, age and evolution of the universe, now this is not so.

Agreement on fundamental cosmic numbers?
Overbye says cosmologists are now united and in agreement on the details of the big bang origin of the universe:

‘Dr Allan Sandage, the Carnegie Observatories astronomer, once called cosmology “the search for two numbers” — one, the Hubble constant, telling how fast the universe is expanding, and the other [the cosmic deceleration parameter] telling how fast the expansion is slowing, and thus whether the universe will expand forever or not.’

This is hardly the case. I can only think of a few numbers on which most cosmologists agree and the deceleration parameter is not one of them. However, one may be the Hubble parameter (H0) which relates the speed that an object is receding to its distance from Earth. They currently claim H0 = 80 ± 10 km s–1 Mpc–1, which is about a 12% error margin, but they still argue over what weighting factor one applies to the distance data that determines the parameter.

Another number is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature of T0 = 2.73 K. A third is the average density of visible normal matter in the current universe.

Many other parameters are unknown, such as the curvature of space, or the amount of normal matter in the universe expressed as a fraction of the total amount necessary for the universe to collapse back on itself, represented by the symbol Ω (capital omega). This is actually one of the major debates among cosmologists: If Ω < 1, then the universe is open and space has a hyperbolic geometry; if Ω > 1, the universe is closed and space has an elliptical geometry. For any oscillating universe theory to work, the universe must be closed. But currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ models predict that the universe’s density is just below the threshold of collapse, i.e. Ω = 1 — a geometrically ‘flat’ universe.1

Then there are the issues of dark matter, the interpretation of peculiar redshifts, even the interpretation of redshifts themselves that are not agreed upon by cosmologists.

I am reminded of a plenary talk that I heard delivered by Ron Ekers of the Australia Telescope National Facility at the Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurement, held in the Hilton hotel, Sydney in the middle of 2000. This was a conference bringing together mostly physicists involved with making very precise measurements of quantities like mass (kilograms), time (seconds), frequency (hertz), resistance (ohms), capacitance (farads) etc. Generally they would report measurements with errors like 0.00000001% (or 1 part in 1010) or less. In his talk, titled ‘Metrology and the Universe’, he made the clear point of saying how he felt a little out of place at the conference, because as an astrophysicist, he was happy with errors of 100% (or 1 part in 2). That is to say, if he were trying to determine some cosmological parameter, A, then he would be happy with a number somewhere between 0 and 2 times A (twice its expected value). Not exactly an exact science. It is a far cry from the precision of repeatable lab experiments. The problem with cosmology is the distance and time scales, which leave the data enormously open to interpretation.

Models are filled with many unknown parameters
Current cosmological big bang models are based on a solution of Einstein’s field equation, which comes from his General Theory of relativity. That particular solution was discovered by Friedmann and Lemaître (F–L). It suggested that the universe was expanding. Earlier, Einstein himself had arrived at a different solution that suggested that the universe was static. He believed the universe to be stable and used a constant in his equation to achieve this end. Hubble in 1929 announced that he believed the universe was expanding based on the observation of galaxies all over the sky racing away from the Earth. As a result, Einstein was accused of inserting a fudge factor (the cosmological constant) to keep the universe from collapsing. He is quoted as saying it was ‘the biggest blunder of my life.’ But the constant he inserted was a valid constant, and now it has been revived to explain the apparent acceleration away from us of the distant galaxies. The point that needs to be clearly understood here is that there is a host of models that are collectively described by the many key parameters they incorporate.

Overbye writes:

‘“Cosmologists are often wrong,” the Russian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Lev Landau put it, “but never in doubt.”’


This is contradicted by the existence of many contrary opinions on the details of the big bang, as well as the continued survival of the opposing model, the Steady State theory of the late Sir Fred Hoyle, Bondi and Gold. It seemed to die with the discovery of the CMB radiation2 but revived again recently by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar.3,4

The claim of the big-bangers that Gamow successfully predicted the CMB temperature in 1948 with a value of 5 K (later in the 1950s raised to 10 K), is undermined by the fact that McKellar successfully predicted a 2.3 K temperature, in 1941, from observation of absorption lines caused by quantum mechanical features of rotating diatomic interstellar molecules. Remember it wasn’t until 1965 when Penzias and Wilson discovered the radiation pouring in from the cosmos. Gold had argued in 1955 that thermalization of starlight would occur but never did the calculation which would have produced a temperature of 2.78 K.

This just demonstrates the logical fallacy of using successful prediction as ‘proof’ of a theory, because there may be more than one theory that predicts the same data. Rather, it is logically valid to use a failed prediction as disproof of a theory — see Logic and Creation.

Then in the past few decades, there has arisen a new breed of cosmologist who accepts neither of these views above. Some are creationists, like Humphreys and Gentry, whose models of origins (see books on the right for some information) are based on the book of Genesis, as a creation of God, the supernatural Creator of all things. They don’t pretend to know all the details of the early history, but have offered some new and innovative ideas. Others see design in nature and don’t claim to be able to extrapolate what we observe today to the distant past.

Ripples in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
Cosmologists are hardly ‘entering a “golden age” in which data are outrunning speculation’ as the article suggests. If this is a reference to the volumes of data coming from measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation from the cosmos, it is misplaced. There are many possible interpretations of the blotches seen in the CMB two-dimensional temperature maps besides the desired belief that they are some ‘clumpiness’ due to the quantum nature of the radiation shortly after the big bang. The believers see them as the seeds of galaxies but are they?

They have been interpreted in a different way by Gurzadyan5 as the effect of mixing of the trajectories of photons within a bundle as they propagate through space. That is, because a bundle of photons is not a point object, the individual photons follow different paths from the source to the receiver. The result at the receiving end is an enlarged and smeared image.

A ‘Standard’ model?
The article speaks of a ‘standard model’ of the universe. The so-called standard model is a construct in the minds of the big bang cosmologist where the big bang is assumed to be true and then the value of the parameters needed to achieve this are explored. This approach has led to many absurd conclusions. In the analysis of the cosmic microwave background data, many key parameters are inserted and then it is claimed that they are seeing the ‘hand of God’ in the period milliseconds after the big bang. Also this approach has been applied to the supernova data of Perlmutter6,7,8and Schmidt9,10which they interpret to mean the universe is accelerating. The extrapolation is critically dependent on the choice of these parameters.

The F–L big bang inflation (expanding universe) models correctly predict the CMB radiation temperatures both now and at times in the past when the universe was smaller and hotter. But so does Gentry’s model that utilises the Einstein-de Sitter static spacetime solution, which sees the galaxies expanding into the existing space (as opposed to classic big bang which has space itself expanding). No spatial stretching occurs, yet many of the observational tests of a cosmological model are verified. Both classes of models are based on the same General Theory of Relativity. F–L big models assume an unbounded possibly infinite universe. Gentry’s and Humphreys’ models assume the universe to be finite and bounded, a view consistent with Genesis. The consequence of different boundary conditions radically alters the outcome of the model, yet the latter models explain some observations that the big bangers ignore. See also Q&A: Astronomy — What are some of the problems with the ‘big bang’ theory?

Dark matter and dark energy
The ‘standard model’ now seems to demand that the universe is about 5% ordinary matter, which is observed through telescopes; 22.5% is dark matter, which is not observed; and the remaining is a mysterious dark energy, 72.5%. The need for the dark energy has been invoked by a need to explain the acceleration of distant galaxies. Besides the supernova data, there is no hard evidence for this additional long-range force. Usually the symbol ΩM represents the fraction of both normal and dark matter in the universe and ΩΛ represents the contribution from the cosmological constant or dark energy. The data from 42 supernovae was interpreted to mean ΩM + ΩΛ = 1 or the universe is flat. Hence in the ‘standard model’ above ΩM = 0.28 and ΩΛ = 0.72. But these parameters can vary between ΩM = 0–0.75 and ΩΛ = 1–0.25 and still fit the data.11

‘Quintessence’ is being invoked. This is speculated to be the energy density of a slowly evolving scalar field,12 which may constitute a dynamical form of the homogeneous dark energy in the universe. This is viewed as different from the cosmological constant, a long-range force accelerating the galaxies apart. Cosmological observations or a time variation of fundamental ‘constants’ are expected to distinguish quintessence from a cosmological constant. Even models including a variable speed of light, which would violate Einstein’s General and Special Theories, are now in the literature.13,5

The need for dark matter comes from observations of apparently anomalous speeds of stars in outer arms of some spiral galaxies (rotation curves). Also, the motion of some galaxies in clusters and the aesthetic desire of cosmologists to see the universe just avoid collapsing back on itself (i.e. to have a flat universe) dictates much more matter is needed than is observed.

But there may be other explanations. For example the case of the rotation curves can be explained by a modification to Newton’s gravitational law, changing the inverse square of distance to just inverse distance at distances greater than about 3 million light-years. The model is based on a different view of gravitation to Einstein’s General Theory that involves a degree of gravitational shielding by massive objects. The model is not without experimental basis as a number of experiments have been repeated with the same peculiar results. The mass derived from the motion of the separation of galaxies in clusters is based on a long-range assumption, which cannot be proven. Also there is the inherent assumption about the billion years time scale of the age of the galaxies. The article says of the model with flat space (because of critical density):

‘... to many theorists the simplest and most mathematically beautiful solution of all.’

But there is no reason to assume the universe has critical density. According to McGaugh recent BOOMERANG data, which measured variations in the CMB radiation, suggest that the universe is filled with normal matter, no exotic particles, no cold dark matter (CDM). This would leave the cosmologist very short of needed matter, or the F–L models on which McGaugh did his calculations are wrong.

The lack of CDM has caused particular concern for some Princeton astrophysicists who propose particles as big as galaxies to explain lack of dwarf galaxy formation. The particles have a density 10-24 times the density of an electron and wave-functions of the order of 3000 light-years. They interact only with gravity and almost impossible to detect. The problem seems to be that these particles are needed to explain why dwarf galaxies are far rarer than big bang theory predicts. As theory goes, CDM was introduced to get matter to form galaxies early in the universe’s history, but that created another problem in computer simulations, forming huge numbers of unobserved dwarf galaxies. Hence the proposed particles, that would form giant globs of ‘fuzzy’ cold dark matter.

The missing dark matter in galaxies, clusters and the whole universe and the smoothness of the CMB radiation create unassailable problems in the formation of stars and galaxies in the ‘early universe’ — see also No Dark Matter Found in the Milky Way Galaxy. The big bang inflation model needed the temperature variations in the CMB to be more than 10 times larger. Still, it was hailed a success? Prof. Stephen Hawking in his book said:

‘This [big bang] picture of the universe ... is in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today,’ but admitted, ‘Nevertheless, it leaves a number of important questions unanswered ... (the origin of the stars and galaxies).’

The origin of stars and galaxies! Without an explanation of those there is no explanation of the structure of the universe. That was published 14 years ago, and Overbye’s article here admits the problem is still there:


‘“It's a huge mystery exactly how stars form,” Dr. Richard Bond of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics.’

This confirms what AiG has said — see Are stars forming today? And Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’.14

The meaning of redshifts
The very meaning of redshifts themselves is argued over by cosmologists. Only in F–L expanding universe models is the interpretation that redshifts result from the stretching of space as the photons of light are in flight through the cosmos. The unproven and unprovable Cosmological Principle is then invoked to say that what we see is not special and any observer anywhere in the universe would see the same. The implication of empirical evidence is that the redshifts measured in the starlight of galaxies in all directions in the sky imply that the Earth is near the centre of the universe. The simplest assumption would tell us that they are Doppler shifts, but because this was philosophically unacceptable, an alternative was developed, that the centre is everywhere and that the red-shifts are cosmological in an infinite universe that is essentially homogeneous. Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology reveals the bias:

‘Such a condition [these Doppler shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.’

Hubble himself was driven by his own bias to avoid a conclusion he could not accept. The notion of positively curved space also gets the cosmologist out of the ‘hot’ water of the Earth being in a special place in the universe. In that case the universe can be finite but have no centre. The problem with that model is according to its adherents the supernova data indicate flat space. Also the CMB data is interpreted by de Bernardis15 to be consistent with flat space but by Gurzadyan16 with negative curvature. Why not accept the obvious?

Then there are the observations of Tifft. His data were from galaxies from in all directions in the sky showing that redshifts are quantised, or come in discrete amounts. The big bang F–L cosmologists discount these observations as they don’t fit the standard model. One interpretation of this fact would be that the universe has a shell structure and galaxies are found at distances with regular intervals between. This also would put the Earth somewhere near the centre of the universe, because if it were a long way from the point on which the shells are centred the effect of quantised redshifts would be washed out. This fact is recognised in both Humphreys’ and Gentry’s cosmological models.

Then there are the observations of Arp who showed peculiar physical associations between quasars and galaxies with greatly different redshifts — see Galaxy-Quasar ‘Connection’ Defies Explanation. A survey of some 70 quasars showed that they were quantised and that they follow a predictable pattern. How are these facts explained by big bang cosmology? Instead, they are ignored or called ‘bad science’.

Exotic theories

New cosmological theories are rife, more so today than ever before. In fact they are more exotic than ever. Maybe ‘exotic’ is the word they deliberately use to disguise the truth of how ‘way out’ some of their models are, yet the very word actually hints at that. There are models that start before the big bang, where the universe supposedly arose from a fluctuation that may continually occur creating multiple universes, an infinite number that makes anything possible. But there is not a shred of experimental evidence for these theories, only fairies in the bottom of the garden. The article says

‘Many varieties of these particles [that would comprise dark matter left over from the big bang] are predicted by theories of high-energy physics. But their existence has not been confirmed or detected in particle accelerators. “We theorists can invent all sorts of garbage to fill the universe,” Dr. Sheldon Glashow, a Harvard physicist and Nobel laureate, told a gathering on dark matter in 1981.’

There are the string theories, with M-branes, P-branes etc but these theories require energies greater than the Sun can deliver to test them.

Finally I quote from a paper17 posted to the Los Alamos pre-print archive on 1 August 2002 with the abstract stating that some assumptions of the inflation model lead to deep paradoxes ...

‘Present cosmological evidence points to an inflationary beginning and an accelerated de Sitter end. Most cosmologists accept these assumptions, but there are still major unresolved debates concerning them. For example, there is no consensus about initial conditions. Neither string theory nor quantum gravity provide a consistent starting point for a discussion of the initial singularity or why the entropy of the initial state is so low. ... Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history.’6 (emphasis added)

What hope have we to get a resolution then? The article asks:

‘Moreover there are some questions that scientists still do not know how to ask, let alone answer, scientifically. Was there anything before the Big Bang? Is there a role for life in the cosmos? Why is there something rather than nothing at all? Will we ever know?’

These questions have been asked. They are answered in the Bible. The Creation by God’s hand gives meaning to the universe. Creationists, who accept the Biblical account, and also accept the validity of the laws of physics, are looking for the mechanisms of the origin of the universe, but within the framework revealed by the One who was there at the Creation. God is the first cause of all, only the details are not always clear. Some questions cannot be answered scientifically but the answer has been given.



I guess I DO have a "rudimentary" (another pejorative word) understanding of the Big Bang model.
 
fossten said:
I've read more books on evolution than you've ever dreamed of.
I would challenge you to name them, but you'd probably just hop over to Amazon and copy and paste a few titles. Fact is, I say you're full of it. I doubt you even read Behe's book, let alone a book that isn't written by a creationist. Call that an ad hominem attack, I really don't give a damn. I've long since given up trying to reason with you. I do this for my own amusement. Call me a masochist.

fossten said:
Why don't you try reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe before you go off un-cocked again?
Because I'm not going to waste my time reading something from an author whose "theories" have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

fossten said:
answersingenesis.org simply has information readily available, and it isn't "tainted" (pejorative, contemptuous condescending word always used by evolutionists) by anything. It uses science, something I have yet to see you do in this thread. All you've done, especially in this last post, is make assertions without backing them up with evidence.
From AiG's "About" page:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).[Notice it says "bankruptcy", as in "moral bankruptcy", but not scientific flaws]

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood [DISTORTED], the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Q&A page—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and cosmogony.
Not tainted my ass.

fossten said:
As far as the age of the universe goes, you can't get to first base in proving it.
Yes, I know, because you're the expert. We've already established that.

fossten said:
Speaking of Cosmology and the Big Bang model, why don't you check this out:

Cosmologists Can’t Agree and Are Still In Doubt!

......................
Lots and lots of copyright-infringed words and paragraphs which could have been distilled into this simple sentence: "Since science doesn't know EVERYTHING about the universe, it therefore knows NOTHING." (The same argument used against evolution BTW) Which is a total crock.

The claim that cosmologists all agree with each other about the exact age and nature of the universe is absolutely false, no matter who says so, including one cosmologist. But I can say with absolute certainty that you will not find a single cosmologist who will say that the universe is less than 10 billion years old and that the earth is at the center of it.

Also a crock is the assertation that because we don't know how stars and galaxies form, then it proves that they couldn't have (formed). There are many theories of star and galaxy formation, here's only one of them.

The fact that we don't know every last working detail of the universe is hardly surprising is it? And why do we need to know what was around BEFORE the Big Bang in order to know what came AFTER it? That is one question we will never know the answer to, and I'm fine with that. Did God trigger the Big Bang? Sounds reasonable to me. Let there be light.

fossten said:
I guess I DO have a "rudimentary" (another pejorative word) understanding of the Big Bang model.
No, it just proves that you are capable of clicking control-c and control-v. Help yourself to a cookie.
 
MAC1 said:
Why don't you point out to what I plagiarized. I can't find the paragraph or idea you contend was plagiarized. Moreover, what is stated in the paragraph you bolded is of general knowledge. If your going to accuse someone of plagiarizing at least get your facts straight, and at least take the time to spell the word correctly. :rolleyes:
I will take the time to properly spell the word next time. If you would like to debate grammar with me, I would suggest using "you are" or "you're" in your post as that would be the correct way.

The idea that may be common knowledge to us all is not cohesive with the rest of the original post in terms of structure or verbage. We both know you don't have the diction.
 
fossten said:
Please list your "ton of discoveries" that refute this, don't just assert it. That's YOUR problem, not mine.


I see, so you automatically discredit somebody because they believe in Creation? Talk about having your head in the sand. Forget the guy's credentials, he's a lunatic, right? Your argument has no scientific basis, but is pejorative in nature, and is therefore logically flawed. Why should I be surprised, though? Anytime there has been a debate in recent years by a CREATIONIST and EVOLUTIONIST, the EVOLUTIONIST has always resorted to personal attacks rather than debating the merits, because they lose otherwise.




Talk about foolish, look at what you've been doing, you people who use the words "creationist" and "religious" and "religion" to attack anybody who doesn't believe that we came from freaking monkeys. What a crock of crap, you hypocrite. I guess it's annoying to hear those terms used on you, but it's okay for you to use them on others? Your own paragraph totally contradicts and refutes your earlier statement above, where you identified the only problem with the article as the fact that he is a Creationist. Forget that he has honors degrees in physics and electronics, he's wrong because he's a creationist! :bowrofl: Who looks foolish now? You just shot yourself in the foot.


Now that is just an absurd argument. If the universe was formed the way YOU EVOLUTIONISTS believe, there must have been uniformity of age. There's no other way to slice time, Mr. H.G. Wells. Nice try. Otherwise, explain how Saturn itself was formed AFTER the Big Bang. :bowrofl:

Why don't you look up that answer for yourself and post it for us? We're all dying to find what you came up with!
 
"God, the creator of all things."

Give me an example on how that statement can possibly be true, or some type of theory or explanation or something credible, and I'll re-open my mind on believing the bible over evolution.
 
fossten said:
explain how Saturn itself was formed AFTER the Big Bang. :bowrofl:

Evolution. ..in a not so general sense.

You're a nut. I'm gonna go ahead and throw my view, opinion, stupidity, or whatever a 'creationist' would call it, out here.. that, die hard believers in God are no more sane than the crazy bastards who committed suicide in Waco to catch a ride behind the comet. Why do true christians think those people are whack? Good question, because they're one in the same.

What I've realized.. is most people who consider themselves 'christians' .. don't really have a strong belief in God's existance. When you live in the real world, people are open to share! When you worship the bible, nobody tells you anything! So, Fossten, my friend........ you don't know how few your kind really is. If you did, I think the false strength that belief gives you .. would really scare you!

Since I was young, 5 years old.. in sunday school, I never believed. I tried understanding, and I never got answers for my questions! Not real answers.. because they don't exist! It makes no sense! And even if it did, then what God or Jesus 'wants' you to believe.. is bullsh*t anyways. "I love you, but if you don't obide by this you're going to HELL" Um, let me ponder this.....Oh, Ok!.. Thanks! Nobody in 2007 can be a true christian anyways. We all stand for things against the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" Ok...... so, everybody at war that allows you the freedom to type on your keyboard is going to hell!

If there were only die hard christians in this world, we'd all be dead. Grow up, move on, and get real. "Because the bible says so." STFU. God freaks are f'g hypocrites.
 
TommyB said:
I would challenge you to name them, but you'd probably just hop over to Amazon and copy and paste a few titles. Fact is, I say you're full of it. I doubt you even read Behe's book, let alone a book that isn't written by a creationist. Call that an ad hominem attack, I really don't give a damn. I've long since given up trying to reason with you. I do this for my own amusement. Call me a masochist.

Because I'm not going to waste my time reading something from an author whose "theories" have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

From AiG's "About" page:


Not tainted my ass.

Yes, I know, because you're the expert. We've already established that.

Lots and lots of copyright-infringed words and paragraphs which could have been distilled into this simple sentence: "Since science doesn't know EVERYTHING about the universe, it therefore knows NOTHING." (The same argument used against evolution BTW) Which is a total crock.

The claim that cosmologists all agree with each other about the exact age and nature of the universe is absolutely false, no matter who says so, including one cosmologist. But I can say with absolute certainty that you will not find a single cosmologist who will say that the universe is less than 10 billion years old and that the earth is at the center of it.

Also a crock is the assertation that because we don't know how stars and galaxies form, then it proves that they couldn't have (formed). There are many theories of star and galaxy formation, here's only one of them.

The fact that we don't know every last working detail of the universe is hardly surprising is it? And why do we need to know what was around BEFORE the Big Bang in order to know what came AFTER it? That is one question we will never know the answer to, and I'm fine with that. Did God trigger the Big Bang? Sounds reasonable to me. Let there be light.

No, it just proves that you are capable of clicking control-c and control-v. Help yourself to a cookie.

Blah blah blah...

Let me sum up your "I said all that to say this" statement:

You admit you really don't know. And from that marvelous revelation, you somehow think I'm wrong. Sorry, Tommy, those two positions CANNOT logically coexist. I can tell you didn't read my post, because it clearly states that all cosmologists DO NOT agree with one another. So much for your reading comprehension. Shall we parse more of your words?

"Since science doesn't know EVERYTHING about the universe, it therefore knows NOTHING." That's not what I said, nor did I imply that. Terrible job of putting words in my mouth, but I'm not so stupid as to let you get away with that. What I said is that since science doesn't know everything, evolutionists CANNOT CLAIM to have proof of their beliefs.

You argue that I haven't read Behe's book. That's an absurd argument. The fact is that not only have I read his book, but you probably never even heard of Behe's book, nor would you ever have the guts to read it, nor do you have a "rudimentary understanding" of irreducible complexity, but then again NEITHER DID DARWIN. So don't bother commenting until you've read his book. Behe has more credentials than you could ever have.

By the way, you obviously don't know the difference between a masochist and a sadist.
 
poniesviii said:
Evolution. ..in a not so general sense.

You're a nut. I'm gonna go ahead and throw my view, opinion, stupidity, or whatever a 'creationist' would call it, out here.. that, die hard believers in God are no more sane than the crazy bastards who committed suicide in Waco to catch a ride behind the comet. Why do true christians think those people are whack? Good question, because they're one in the same.

What I've realized.. is most people who consider themselves 'christians' .. don't really have a strong belief in God's existance. When you live in the real world, people are open to share! When you worship the bible, nobody tells you anything! So, Fossten, my friend........ you don't know how few your kind really is. If you did, I think the false strength that belief gives you .. would really scare you!

Since I was young, 5 years old.. in sunday school, I never believed. I tried understanding, and I never got answers for my questions! Not real answers.. because they don't exist! It makes no sense! And even if it did, then what God or Jesus 'wants' you to believe.. is bullsh*t anyways. "I love you, but if you don't obide by this you're going to HELL" Um, let me ponder this.....Oh, Ok!.. Thanks! Nobody in 2007 can be a true christian anyways. We all stand for things against the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" Ok...... so, everybody at war that allows you the freedom to type on your keyboard is going to hell!

If there were only die hard christians in this world, we'd all be dead. Grow up, move on, and get real. "Because the bible says so." STFU. God freaks are f'g hypocrites.

Um...exactly which cult committed suicide in Waco?

If you're referring to the Heaven's Gate crowd, they were in Oregon and later moved to California. :bowrofl:

You called me a nut, but you're an idiot. You don't even check your sources before you spew all over us.

You are just another in a long line of Christian-bashers. I think I'll call you Amanda, since you sound so much like Amanda Marcotte, who recently disgraced herself with her anti-Christian rhetoric and had to quit the John Edwards campaign.
 
DLS8K said:
I will take the time to properly spell the word next time. If you would like to debate grammar with me, I would suggest using "you are" or "you're" in your post as that would be the correct way.

The idea that may be common knowledge to us all is not cohesive with the rest of the original post in terms of structure or verbage. We both know you don't have the diction.
First you accuse me of plagiarism and now you attack my writing ability. Golly Gee! I guess you showed me! :rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
Um...exactly which cult committed suicide in Waco?

If you're referring to the Heaven's Gate crowd, they were in Oregon and later moved to California. :bowrofl:

You called me a nut, but you're an idiot. You don't even check your sources before you spew all over us.

You are just another in a long line of Christian-bashers. I think I'll call you Amanda, since you sound so much like Amanda Marcotte, who recently disgraced herself with her anti-Christian rhetoric and had to quit the John Edwards campaign.

:blah: :blah: :blah:

I'm not a christian basher. I'm a freak and nut job basher :waving:
 
poniesviii said:
Since I was young, 5 years old.. in sunday school, I never believed. I tried understanding, and I never got answers for my questions! Not real answers.. because they don't exist! It makes no sense! And even if it did, then what God or Jesus 'wants' you to believe.. is bullsh*t anyways. "I love you, but if you don't obide by this you're going to HELL" Um, let me ponder this.....Oh, Ok!.. Thanks! Nobody in 2007 can be a true christian anyways. We all stand for things against the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" Ok...... so, everybody at war that allows you the freedom to type on your keyboard is going to hell!

If there were only die hard christians in this world, we'd all be dead. Grow up, move on, and get real. "Because the bible says so." STFU. God freaks are f'g hypocrites.

poniesviii said:
I'm not a christian basher.
Riiiiiggghhttt. :rolleyes:

You may not be a troll, although we will see if you stick around, but you are definitely a hater, Amanda.
 
MAC1 said:
First you accuse me of plagiarism and now you attack my writing ability. Golly Gee! I guess you showed me! :rolleyes:
I attacked your writing ability because you attacked my ability to correctly spell a word. Therefore, I feel obligated to offer the same help to you in terms of your grammar so that we may both benefit from the experience. The way I see it, it is just one man helping another out with a problem.

Sorry to deviate from the topic of this thread. I was hoping Fossten would give us the answer that we're all dying to know which was how Saturn itself was formed AFTER the Big Bang. I'm assuming he asked the question because he has the answer?
 
MAC1 said:
Evolution is at work again. Here's a video of a duck with four legs. Well, it looks like a new species is forming? :rolleyes:

Actually that looks more like some sort of conjoined twin; but mutations do happen and usually not so severe.

If you're going to use sarcasm against Evolution thereby dismissing it as be foolish, at least teach yourself what it actually is beforehand. I get the impression that people (not pointing fingers) in here that completely dismiss the "Theory of Evolution" believe that Evolution dictates that animals just "poof" change into something else. i.e. a fish grows legs and walks on land. It just isn't so.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Actually that looks more like some sort of conjoined twin; but mutations do happen and usually not so severe.

If you're going to use sarcasm against Evolution thereby dismissing it as be foolish, at least teach yourself what it actually is beforehand. I get the impression that people (not pointing fingers) in here that completely dismiss the "Theory of Evolution" believe that Evolution dictates that animals just "poof" change into something else. i.e. a fish grows legs and walks on land. It just isn't so.

Ah, a hint of a grasp on reality remains in the LvC Politics forum!

How else would you expect those who dismiss evolution and maintain a death grip on "creationism" to explain the millions of species? Species can't possibly evolve so slowly within the timeframe of the earth's 6,000 year lifetime, therefore there MUST be sudden mutations such as conjoined twins!!
:rolleyes:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Ah, a hint of a grasp on reality remains in the LvC Politics forum!

How else would you expect those who dismiss evolution and maintain a death grip on "creationism" to explain the millions of species? Species can't possibly evolve so slowly within the timeframe of the earth's 6,000 year lifetime, therefore there MUST be sudden mutations such as conjoined twins!!
:rolleyes:

This from the guy who maintains a death grip on global warming junk science, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

LOL the hypocrisy is palpable.

Insert Ahmadinejohnny personal attack here: ________________________
 
95DevilleNS said:
Actually that looks more like some sort of conjoined twin; but mutations do happen and usually not so severe.

If you're going to use sarcasm against Evolution thereby dismissing it as be foolish, at least teach yourself what it actually is beforehand. I get the impression that people (not pointing fingers) in here that completely dismiss the "Theory of Evolution" believe that Evolution dictates that animals just "poof" change into something else. i.e. a fish grows legs and walks on land. It just isn't so.
I do know what the theory of evolution teaches--and that it doesn't teach that new species simply appeared overnight. It does teach that 'mutations' and 'natural selection' over millions of years has produced all of the vast and complex lifeforms on Earth. However, evolutionists still to this day cannot show that the 'mutation' theory is even viable. The latest approach is to use computers to simulate evolution based on a software program since the fruit fly expirements were such a miserable disaster.

If I poke fun at evolution don't take it personally, it's just that evolutionist still have a long way to go to prove to me that it's the reason why you and I are alive along with every other living thing in the cosmos.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Ah, a hint of a grasp on reality remains in the LvC Politics forum!

How else would you expect those who dismiss evolution and maintain a death grip on "creationism" to explain the millions of species? Species can't possibly evolve so slowly within the timeframe of the earth's 6,000 year lifetime, therefore there MUST be sudden mutations such as conjoined twins!!
:rolleyes:

Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? It's the "theory" that evolutionists invented to explain the lack of gradual changes in the fossils, thus making it harder to prove evolution of one species into another. Your sarcasm has yawned wide and swallowed you.
 
MAC1 said:
I do know what the theory of evolution teaches--and that it doesn't teach that new species simply appeared overnight. It does teach that 'mutations' and 'natural selection' over millions of years has produced all of the vast and complex lifeforms on Earth. However, evolutionists still to this day cannot show that the 'mutation' theory is even viable. The latest approach is to use computers to simulate evolution based on a software program since the fruit fly expirements were such a miserable disaster.

If I poke fun at evolution don't take it personally, it's just that evolutionist still have a long way to go to prove to me that it's the reason why you and I are alive along with every other living thing in the cosmos.

It is viable in theory and the fossil record is further proof to back up that theory; if you have some way to show something that occurs over the period of eons and factor in the multitude of possible outside influences, e.g. environmental changes in real-time please do tell.

I don't take it personally; I just get the impression that some people are judging based on misinformation. I've actually debated with someone who said "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there any monkeys left!?"

Evolution doesn't "prove" what you're asking of it necessarily.
 
fossten said:
Ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? It's the "theory" that evolutionists invented to explain the lack of gradual changes in the fossils, thus making it harder to prove evolution of one species into another. Your sarcasm has yawned wide and swallowed you.


You have to take into account two factors:

1) Evolution Science has gone a long way since Darwin, i.e. it's progressing as new technology and information is built and learned.

2) Things do not die and automatically become fossilized. Circumstances have to be extremely precise for fossils remain to form. So take that into account when you argue, "there aren't exact links". Also, even if something does become fossilized, if still needs to be found which is also no easy task.
 
95DevilleNS said:
You have to take into account two factors:

1) Evolution Science has gone a long way since Darwin, i.e. it's progressing as new technology and information is built and learned.

2) Things do not die and automatically become fossilized. Circumstances have to be extremely precise for fossils remain to form. So take that into account when you argue, "there aren't exact links". Also, even if something does become fossilized, if still needs to be found which is also no easy task.

1. Evolution Science is an oxymoron.
2. Your statement proves my point. The so-called scientists invented the Cambrian Explosion to explain away the FACT that they have NEVER found ONE missing link between one species and another. And you need to take into account all the fraudulent attempts to tout missing links that have all been discredited as fakes.
 
Way to side-step the point... Darwin was the pioneer in the field, the people that took up the mantle afterwards were not much better off with what they had to work with. There are errors and falsehoods in every field of science, especially at its infancy.

As far as your "NEVER found ONE missing link", the fossil records showing that animals becoming more complex and better suited for specific environments as time progresses is proof.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Way to side-step the point... Darwin was the pioneer in the field, the people that took up the mantle afterwards were not much better off with what they had to work with. There are errors and falsehoods in every field of science, especially at its infancy.

As far as your "NEVER found ONE missing link", the fossil records showing that animals becoming more complex and better suited for specific environments as time progresses is proof.

Not to mention the FACT that as time goes on and more discoveries are made, many "missing links" HAVE been found in the fossil record. It's just a matter of time before the others have been found. But FACTS must not be good enough for someone who's entire world is based on BELIEFS.
:rolleyes:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top