Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
80,581 - 80,600 of 113,146 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85256
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Like i said, there were Jewish conspiracies.
The Arabs, Assyrians and other tribes confirmed his existence. Who are you to challenge that.
Hahahahah the Arabs did? You mean Mohammed, writing (actually reciting) 600 years later, garbling the various old biblical stories well known in his time and place, is now a SOURCE of EVIDENCE that Jesus existed? He is no more a source of evidence than you are. 2000 years, 600 years, makes no difference.

You are really grasping at straws now!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85258
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, the Ancient Egyptians were more of Christians than any other faiths, until the Muslims hijacked that. Thank God for the Copts( Coptic Christians).
Yeah, isn't it funny that GOD let more than half of the old Roman, Christian Empire fall to the Muslim infidels in a few short years, turning millions of Christians into Muslims which by your belief system means they should be on their way to hell instead of heaven.

Muslims of course interpret their rapid takeover of Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and even Spain, then Turkey, Greece, and the Balkins, as obvious evidence that GOD was on their side, not the Christians. And there are only a few Christians left in Egypt - instead of NONE - because they were tolerant of Christians, though they encourage them still to understand the truth of the Quran.

Why do you think GOD let all those millions get condemned to a religion of hell?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85259
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And they were predominantly Christians, until the Muslims hijacked that.
Obviously, God's will then.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85260
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone"]<quoted text> No, it doesn't.

(The Question was "does science date the universe?")

You really sure about that answer?

<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <

This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe.

The age of the universe is defined inphysical cosmology as the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best estimate of the age of the universe, as of 22 March 2013, is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years (4.351 ± 0.017 × 1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty of 37 million years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling timeof the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_uni...

Hubble Time

The inverse of the Hubble constant H has the units of time because the Hubble law is
v = H d
where v is the velocity of recession, H is the Hubble constant, and d is the distance. Thus, from this equation, we have that 1/H = d/v. but d/v is distance divided by velocity, which is time (e.g., if I travel 180 miles at 60 miles/hour, the time required is t = d/v = 180/60 = 3 hours).

Thus, the Hubble time T is just the inverse of the Hubble Constant:

T = 1 / H
Taking a value of H = 20 km/s/Mly (where Mly means mega-light years),

where all the factors are necessary to convert the time units to years and I've rounded some numbers to simplify the display.

The physical interpretation of the Hubble time is that it gives the time for the Universe to run backwards to the Big Bang if the expansion rate (the Hubble "constant") were constant. Thus, it is a measure of the age of the Universe. The Hubble "constant" actually isn't constant, so the Hubble time is really only a rough estimate of the age of the Universe.

Reasonable assumptions for the value of the Hubble constant and the geometry of the Universe typically yield ages of 10-20 billion years for the age of the Universe. For example, H near 50 km/s/Mpc gives a larger value for the age of the Universe (around 16 thousand million years), while a larger value of 80 km/s/Mpc gives a lower value for the age (around 10 thousand million years). Therefore, we shall take this information, and additional information from other methods to estimate the age of the Universe that we have not discussed, to indicate an age of approximately 15 billion years for the Universe.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmo...

April 24, 2002 — The Hubble Space Telescope has read the embers of burnt-out stars to come up with a new way of estimating the universe’s age, scientists said Wednesday. The latest age estimate — 13 billion to 14 billion years — is consistent with the conclusions reached using other methods.

Past observations of faraway celestial objects known as Cepheid variable stars have yielded estimates of 12 billion to 15 billion years for the universe’s age. But those observations depended on assumptions related to how the universe has expanded over those billions of years.

Another method, used by the European Southern Observatory, depended on estimating the rate of radioactive decay within old stars. The European researchers came up with a figure of more than 12.5 billion years.

University of Chicago astrophysicist Michael Turner, commenting on the latest research, said that further studies were essential because the question of the universe’s age is so fundamental to our understanding of the cosmos.

“What’s exciting is, we’re now making enough measurements that we can do these critical tests for age consistency,” he told MSNBC.com .

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077812/

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85261
Apr 7, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you conclude you know the boundaries and limits of my understanding first of all? You speak like all humans understanding is the same. This is your first mistake!
<quoted text>
By first observing nature! This is something that man/woman did not create! Also by accepting that reality (nature) is an absolute truth and this is not a matter of an opinion. One who searches for absolute truth must first understand what nature is and then build his/her thinking on the principles that is found in nature I call the universal constant.
<quoted text>
WRONG! We have access to absolute truths all around us because reality/nature is an absolute truth. You must first accept this if you want access to absolute truths. Any problem can be solved and I know this! WANNA TEST THE DEPTH OF MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I SAY ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH KNOWING ABSOLUTE TRUTHS?! I WELCOME YOUR CHALLENGE BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING HAS NO BOUNDRIES OR LIMITS BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDED ON AN ETERNAL CONCEPT! I await your challenge!
Sorry bud, you are talking out of your arse. Apart from the vaguest generalities, you cannot claim certain truth. Descartes ripped that notion apart 400 years ago.

All you can know is that your own awareness exists, right now.

For all you know, what you see around you is nothing more than a dream, and you could wake up tomorrow in a totally different reality. Now, I do not spend a lot of time pondering this, because its not ABSOLUTE TRUTH that we deal with in the world.

Its the best truth we can find, approximate, practical, measurable, observable, and then explanations generated from that observation that are logical, specific, useful, parsimonious, and falsifiable.

Come down from your acid trip. In the real world, assuming there is one, truth takes a bit more effort than the mad declarations of the delusional like you.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85262
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
KJV, the universe may or may not have started at the Big Bang.

Even if it started then that does not mean a god started it.

You need to have evidence for your claims. You have yet to show any. We don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer at times. "We don't know" does not mean that god did it or is even evidence for a god at all.
You really have two choices.

1) the universe self started from nothing
e.g. Magic

2) there was a creator.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85263
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Neat!
Now tell me how the universe including all its elements, compounds, the solar systems and the galaxies came into form, because we all know, it was never a man made thing ?
For death, why is science and technology unable to stop or eradicate death?
How does us not knowing something prove that God exists? Utterly silly, as always Charles.

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85264
Apr 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have two choices.
1) the universe self started from nothing
e.g. Magic
2) there was a creator.
Booooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnggggg ggggggg

Yes, for someone who is only capable of binary logic, as most conservatives are, that might be your dichotomy of how the universe started......

however, the Universe did start from nothing, only there was no magic involved......

the only way the universe could start from magic if there was a creator....which begs the question.....where did the creator come from.....

its turtles all the way down.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85265
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>And what evidence do you have of these two quite impossible to determine determinations?

"it is known God exist outside of the universe"

"Matter cannot exist outside the universe"

We simply have absolutely no way to determine these things.
Hence these are your "beliefs" , and you have nothing but "belief"
to quantify them.

It is possible this universe is within a larger one, or indeed that there are other universes. We simply cannot tell.
Lets look at the second one.

"Matter cannot exist outside the universe"

What do you think the the universe is?

The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85266
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
And you have no evidence countering his existence.
we also have no evidence countering the existence of

Zeus (well except for Liam Neeson)
Apollo
Jupiter
Mars
Ares
Pluto
Hades (well except for Ralph Fiennes)
Odin
Thor
Isis
Santa Claus
Frodo
your brain
Orisis

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85267
Apr 7, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It amazes me that you could honestly believe that the Lord and Creator of energy, matter, time, and space - even the concept of three spatial dimensions, in which a 3-D body must exit...could actually HAVE a physical form that He reproduced in some sort of cute miniature for humans.
A creator of the whole idea and substance of "form" could not be of any particular form itself. Perhaps more intelligent readers would understand that by "in his image" was meant the ability to think and perceive and create, or to act with free will. That would at least make some kind of superficial sense compared to imagining God as literally some super duper human form. How can you be so silly????
That is not a new idea - the idea of God being formless. If you look through the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, you can find many places where the idea that the true form of God is beyond our understanding is brought out. Islam even forbids to make an image of God.

Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism also affirm similar ideas in different words. The best explanation of God that I like comes from Hinduism. It states simply thus:
"Neti Neti"
which is in Sanskrit and literally translates to "Not this, not that"
Cryptic, as is often the case with Sanskrit scriptures, so a little explanation: "If you think God is this, then it is not that. It is beyond our understanding"

The idea that God created man in his image is the most arrogant and narcissistic notion. The truth is that men created God in their image.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85268
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who said the universe sprang out of nothing?
What did it spring out of before anything existed?

If something existed then it was the universe. What existed before the universe.

Definition of the universe:

The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85269
Apr 7, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, the Ancient Egyptians were more of Christians than any other faiths, until the Muslims hijacked that. Thank God for the Copts( Coptic Christians).
seriously dude, where do you pull these historical facts out of????
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85270
Apr 7, 2013
 
wow wrote:
wow
Funny

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85271
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
Your cult lied to you.
i do not belong to a cult.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85272
Apr 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
What did it spring out of before anything existed?
If something existed then it was the universe. What existed before the universe.
Definition of the universe:
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
exactly it was the universe before it expanded.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85273
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TIP ABSOLUTE TRUTH SEEKERS:

Since we know GOD is an absolute truth you must accept ONLY absolute truths to know GOD true nature. NO EXCEPTIONS!
You got to reach deep on this one and soon you will realize you don't need faith or any religious quotes that do not speak in absolute truths (violate the law of non-contradiction).

You must only accept absolute truths to up-hold GOD ways in this corrupted world in its way of thinking!

Apply the law of non-contradiction (GOD LAW) to the constitution of the United States of America.
Now are we able to choose what we want to do without violating the Law of non-contradiction!
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM under the law of non-contradiction as the foundation of our constitution is what we want!

KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85274
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>It amazes me that you could honestly believe that the Lord and Creator of energy, matter, time, and space - even the concept of three spatial dimensions, in which a 3-D body must exit...could actually HAVE a physical form that He reproduced in some sort of cute miniature for humans.

A creator of the whole idea and substance of "form" could not be of any particular form itself. Perhaps more intelligent readers would understand that by "in his image" was meant the ability to think and perceive and create, or to act with free will. That would at least make some kind of superficial sense compared to imagining God as literally some super duper human form. How can you be so silly????
"could actually HAVE a physical form that He reproduced in some sort of cute miniature for humans"

This is a good point. But according to the Bible, God has shown his face or himself to many humans though out time. While he most likely doesn't hold this form it seems to be the form he chooses to manifest himself as.

"Perhaps more intelligent readers would understand that by "in his image" was meant the ability to think and perceive and create, or to act with free will"

It is conceivable. You could also be correct somethings we will never know in this life. I would not rule out either possibility.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85275
Apr 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"could actually HAVE a physical form that He reproduced in some sort of cute miniature for humans"
This is a good point. But according to the Bible, God has shown his face or himself to many humans though out time. While he most likely doesn't hold this form it seems to be the form he chooses to manifest himself as.
"Perhaps more intelligent readers would understand that by "in his image" was meant the ability to think and perceive and create, or to act with free will"
It is conceivable. You could also be correct somethings we will never know in this life. I would not rule out either possibility.
but the bible if full of known lies so why would any rational person believe anything in it?

believing what a known cult tells you is not the thought process of a healthy mind.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85276
Apr 7, 2013
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets look at the second one.
"Matter cannot exist outside the universe"
What do you think the the universe is?
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
That is a poor definition, correctly it os....
"The universe is comprised of all "known" in existence."
We are cocooned in it though , so we do not know it anything is outside the space/time continuum we are in.
But it doesn't mean it's not possible there is not something else, an outside of of it or another one , and even that this one is not part of a larger one.

We could even be inside a black hole created by another universe.
For layman terms it is all existing matter and energy + dimensions of space/time to the limits of our perception and measure.
But this was once thought to be only the milky way.
The definitions change with discovery , so there is no actual limitation of what could be. We just haven't discovered it yet.

Relativity restricts our ability to detect beyond these limitations we define as the Observable Universe , but not our minds to them. We simply cannot yet say if there is an outside to it.


Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••