Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24773 May 5, 2012
An interesting and at times amusing read.
Gives a real quick overview of how it all works.
A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF CONTINUED EXISTENCE AFTER PHYSICAL DEATH.
Alan Baldwin.

http://www.angmalta.net/clients/alan/existenc...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24774 May 5, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Gregory W.K.(1927): Hesperopithecus apparently not an ape nor a man. Science, 66:579-81.(identified the Nebraska Man tooth as belonging to a peccary)
Gould S.J.(1991): An essay on a pig roast. In Bully for brontosaurus.(pp. 432-47). New York: W.W.Norton.
Osborn H.F.(1922): Hesperopithecus, the anthropoid primate of western Nebraska. Nature, 110:281-3.
Smith G.E.(1922): Hesperopithecus: the ape-man of the western world. Illustrated London News, 160:942-4.
Smith G.E.(1927): The evolution of man. Ed. 2. London: Oxford University Press.
Taylor I.(1995): Nebraska man goes to court. Science, Scripture and Salvation (ICR radio show), Jul 8:
Wolf J. and Mellett J.S.(1985): The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate. Creation/Evolution, Issue 16:31-43.(the best reference on the Nebraska Man episode)
And you can thank the evolutionist scientists for providing the info to you.

Which the creationists then went on to use and misrepresent, because lying for Jesus is a GOOD thing.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24775 May 5, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
A quick wiki, though it can also be found in the site on galaxies i posted.
First, the average density of a supermassive black hole (defined as the mass of the black hole divided by the volume within its Schwarzschild radius) can be less than the density of water in the case of some supermassive black holes.[5] This is because the Schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to mass, while density is inversely proportional to the volume. Since the volume of a spherical object (such as the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole) is directly proportional to the cube of the radius, the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of the mass, and thus higher mass black holes have lower average density. Also, the tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly weaker. Since the central singularity is so far away from the horizon, a hypothetical astronaut traveling towards the black hole center would not experience significant tidal force until very deep into the black hole.
And the singularity can have theoretically indefinite mass.
i thought their density went of the charts to infinity? you can have something with that kind of gravitational pull with a density less than water? i don't think so...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24776 May 5, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Define information in whatever contxt you are using it here.
"Something which requires intelligence meaning GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC is responsible."

Did I miss anything out?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#24777 May 5, 2012
It seems a fundie around here apparently disagrees with my posts, but it would be far more informative for everyone if they could put their objections into words rather than pressing the 'judge' buttons. We'd all like to know which particular points I got wrong, and why, along with evidence to back it up.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24778 May 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
It seems a fundie around here apparently disagrees with my posts, but it would be far more informative for everyone if they could put their objections into words rather than pressing the 'judge' buttons. We'd all like to know which particular points I got wrong, and why, along with evidence to back it up.
I just wondered when the incredible dumbing down had started.
As i recall people where not so daft, that they did not get any post.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#24779 May 5, 2012
MAAT wrote:
The Schwarzschild radius gives the radius at which the Schwarzschild metric becomes singular, and is therefore the "size" of a black hole. It can naively (although incorrectly) be derived by letting the escape velocity of a black hole equal to the speed of light.
Compress the earth to 0,9 centimers etc.
It's an estimation.
There are different approaches.

Then you admit singularities do have a size.
As to the Big Bang it's a singularity the size of the known universe. Our telescopes and all our efforts cannot see past it's particle horizon. All within it is finite, beyond it is infinite. Yes it to has a horizon , as all singularities have a definite mass and size. Though our physics cannot explain the curvature of space/time within them , or the curvature of space/time beyond horizon of the Big Bang singularity.

These sit in opposition to our understanding , this is because we are bound to within the singularity , though we can measure it from within. Just as we can measure the BH from out , but we struggle with outside and inside infinities. We don't think they can exist yet they do. The Schwarzschild radius is the event horizion of the universe.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24780 May 5, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i thought their density went of the charts to infinity? you can have something with that kind of gravitational pull with a density less than water? i don't think so...
The zero point mass nears incredible density,or should i say near the zeropoint mass, but around it it might be like water of gaseous.
So therefore that Schwarzschild formula is what we call a naieve approach.
A brane would be even more complex.
let's not go there, i would just be googling.
just read the galaxy site, take some nice time out, and the given fun site that gives lot's of information.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24781 May 5, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you admit singularities do have a size.
As to the Big Bang it's a singularity the size of the known universe. Our telescopes and all our efforts cannot see past it's particle horizon. All within it is finite, beyond it is infinite. Yes it to has a horizon , as all singularities have a definite mass and size. Though our physics cannot explain the curvature of space/time within them , or the curvature of space/time beyond horizon of the Big Bang singularity.
These sit in opposition to our understanding , this is because we are bound to within the singularity , though we can measure it from within. Just as we can measure the BH from out , but we struggle with outside and inside infinities. We don't think they can exist yet they do. The Schwarzschild radius is the event horizion of the universe.
So what is the density of black hole?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24782 May 5, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you admit singularities do have a size.
As to the Big Bang it's a singularity the size of the known universe. Our telescopes and all our efforts cannot see past it's particle horizon. All within it is finite, beyond it is infinite. Yes it to has a horizon , as all singularities have a definite mass and size. Though our physics cannot explain the curvature of space/time within them , or the curvature of space/time beyond horizon of the Big Bang singularity.
These sit in opposition to our understanding , this is because we are bound to within the singularity , though we can measure it from within. Just as we can measure the BH from out , but we struggle with outside and inside infinities. We don't think they can exist yet they do. The Schwarzschild radius is the event horizion of the universe.
That depends on the working definition, and only as an approximation. But knowing that branes have to be volume-less, one and other is not so cut and dried.
I do not believe there ever was a big bang, it would not be necessary.
And why is matter so cool near the socalled big bang point, as in looking back. Then we get nothing and then backgroundradiation.
So backgroundradiation is the start, and that's as far as we can look.
AM: Just as we can measure the BH from out , but we struggle with outside and inside infinities.
Agree.
Or going from the very small to the huge, though even the latter could be illusion.
Universes started whitin our universe that we can't see etc.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24783 May 5, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
The zero point mass nears incredible density,or should i say near the zeropoint mass, but around it it might be like water of gaseous.
So therefore that Schwarzschild formula is what we call a naieve approach.
A brane would be even more complex.
let's not go there, i would just be googling.
just read the galaxy site, take some nice time out, and the given fun site that gives lot's of information.
so...you don't know is what you're saying. thanx.

what is your persona; attachment to that site you push like a crack dealer?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24784 May 5, 2012
The Bounce.
As where the event-horizon does not entire curve in on itselfs, but 'breaks' before that point.
It would not even have to be a huge black hole a sufficiently big stellar mass could do the trick too.
And we have those baby-galaxies that generate micro-wave-radiation, and that might be as old as 400,000 yrs post background radiation.
And that f.i. also drift into our galaxie, one nearing the center.
Oh almost forgot, we have lots of other smaller black holes, so calculating mass, is a bit tricky.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24785 May 5, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so...you don't know is what you're saying. thanx.
what is your persona; attachment to that site you push like a crack dealer?
Talking about the really small and the really big at the same time...you don't know what you are asking.
I should now suppose that you have no background.
Both are easy to understand, both are fun and we don't have to sit here forever explaining things, or speculate.
And have people like langoliers thinking that gravity does not work anymore.:)
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Chico, CA

#24786 May 5, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i don't know, can it? do you know?
can it evolve by dumping uneeded DNA?

As always, show your work.
You are suggesting that by subtracting information, would increase complexity?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24787 May 5, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are suggesting that by subtracting information, would increase complexity?
you can't stay on a logic thread. you are not worth discussing anything more important than which brand of Raiin Bran is better with.(pro'lly not even that)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#24788 May 5, 2012
From the nasa site, an easy answer (no universes in universes etc)
In the case of a black hole, the Schwarzschild radius is mathematically the radius in at which one would have to be moving at the speed of light in order to escape. Or, the radius that nothing can escape. This is only a function of the mass -- not the density.

Putting the numbers in, the Schwarzschild radius (Rsch) is given by:

Rsch = 3km x Mass; Where the Mass is measured in solar masses.

Now, when do we get a black hole? Answer, when the Schwarzschild radius is bigger than the object we think might make a black hole.

The Sun (Mass = 1 solar mass) is not a black hole because it is bigger than 3 km. If we magically shrunk in down to 3km in radius, then it would become a black hole.

Now back to your question: Why then was the early Universe not a black hole? Well, lets figure out its Schwarzschild radius to get a basic rule of thumb idea of what is going on.

Rsch = 3km x Mass of the whole Universe in solar masses
= about 10 to 100 billion light years
= about the current size of the whole Universe

So, in the basic definition of a black hole I used above (where the size of the object is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius) the whole Universe is one big black hole with us on the inside.

Therefore, the simple answer is that we are inside the event horizon of the whole Universe, and there is no way that we can escape the Universe's grasp.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24789 May 5, 2012
MAAT wrote:
From the nasa site, an easy answer (no universes in universes etc)
In the case of a black hole, the Schwarzschild radius is mathematically the radius in at which one would have to be moving at the speed of light in order to escape. Or, the radius that nothing can escape. This is only a function of the mass -- not the density.
Putting the numbers in, the Schwarzschild radius (Rsch) is given by:
Rsch = 3km x Mass; Where the Mass is measured in solar masses.
Now, when do we get a black hole? Answer, when the Schwarzschild radius is bigger than the object we think might make a black hole.
The Sun (Mass = 1 solar mass) is not a black hole because it is bigger than 3 km. If we magically shrunk in down to 3km in radius, then it would become a black hole.
Now back to your question: Why then was the early Universe not a black hole? Well, lets figure out its Schwarzschild radius to get a basic rule of thumb idea of what is going on.
Rsch = 3km x Mass of the whole Universe in solar masses
= about 10 to 100 billion light years
= about the current size of the whole Universe
So, in the basic definition of a black hole I used above (where the size of the object is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius) the whole Universe is one big black hole with us on the inside.
Therefore, the simple answer is that we are inside the event horizon of the whole Universe, and there is no way that we can escape the Universe's grasp.
Are you having whole conversations with yourself?
yessir

District Heights, MD

#24790 May 5, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are suggesting that by subtracting information, would increase complexity?
Clearly woodtick57 is not up to the task...Are there ANY macroevolution proponents here that are willing to provide a cogent response to this question? The conundrum raised by this question seems so obvious that those who are convinced that macroevolution is 'fact' must have faced this at some point and found a satisfying explanation. I'd be grateful to read a well articulated response, preferably accompanied by an observation that illustrates your explanation at work. Thx.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#24791 May 5, 2012
yessir wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly woodtick57 is not up to the task...Are there ANY macroevolution proponents here that are willing to provide a cogent response to this question? The conundrum raised by this question seems so obvious that those who are convinced that macroevolution is 'fact' must have faced this at some point and found a satisfying explanation. I'd be grateful to read a well articulated response, preferably accompanied by an observation that illustrates your explanation at work. Thx.
Perhaps f you weren't such a name -changing troll, people would talk to you...
yessir

Ashburn, VA

#24792 May 5, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps f you weren't such a name -changing troll, people would talk to you...
??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 67,003
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr IB DaMann 28,546
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr Subduction Zone 218
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 160,913
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Timmee 162
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 3 hr Timmee 111
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 3,487
More from around the web