Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216695 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.

KJV

United States

#87465 Apr 23, 2013
__Quintessence__ wrote:
Anyone seen Neanderthal naked?
KK?
KJV

United States

#87466 Apr 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>The laws of chemistry are not "magic."
Spontaneous self generating life is magic.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#87467 Apr 23, 2013
been here done that.
KJV

United States

#87469 Apr 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
End quote
"Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath…" Therefore, we see that the Sabbath in John 19:31 is not the regular Saturday Sabbath observed on
non-festival weeks, but rather a special Passover Sabbath, which commenced on Wednesday at sunset, rather than Friday at sunset. Not only did it start on Wednesday at sunset... but it continued on through three days until Saturday at sunset when the Passover celebration ended. This is why you read about the women returning to Jesus' tomb early on the first day of the week (Sunday). This is because the special 3 day Sabbath had ended and they were very eager to get back to the tomb to add more spices to his body. So now that we see Jesus was crucified on Wednesday, let's go to Luke 23: 44-46 to pinpoint the time he died. "It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour… Jesus called out with a loud voice, Father into your hands I commit
my spirit. When he had said this, he breathed his last." When it says the ninth hour, it means the ninth hour since the break of day. In other words, it was about three o'clock in the afternoon when Jesus died. Then after obtaining permission from Pilate,(which could have easily taken 1-2 hours) Jesus was taken down from the cross and hurriedly buried just before sundown, probably sometime around 6:00 p.m. Remember that Jewish Sabbath days begins at sundown on one day and end at sundown the next. In Leviticus 23:32, God stated, "From the evening… until the following evening you are to observe your Sabbath." So if you count 72 hours from late Wednesday afternoon at around 5-6:00 p.m., you will see that Jesus would have risen and left his tomb at around 5-6:00 p.m. on Saturday.

//////////

Therefore, a Sunday resurrection is not what the Bible reveals to us at all.

__________

We do read in Luke 24: 1-3, "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Clearly, those who arrived at the tomb early Sunday morning discovered an empty tomb, not Jesus rising from the dead in front of them. So to answer your question…

__________
"How did Jesus die on Friday and rise on Sunday and is said to have been dead for 3 days?"
__________

He didn't die on Friday… being the Son of God, his divine spirit departed his human body while on the cross Wednesday afternoon, his earthly body was then placed in a tomb near sunset that same day. His spirit returned to his body at sunset on Saturday to resurrect as a glorified earthly body. His body was soon discovered missing from the tomb early Sunday morning by his followers.

http://carm.org/how-long-was-jesus-dead-tomb
KJV

United States

#87470 Apr 23, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>There can never be absolute freedom. Your freedom ends where my rights begin.
As in "some people are alive today simple because its against the law to kill them."
KJV

United States

#87471 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no-one has ever known. the only correct answer. still the same.
Incorrect, the Bible tells us what there was before time. Because you do not except it is your problem not ours.

We know you don't
KJV

United States

#87472 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i thought there was no rain...
I'm quoting the science myth of spontaneous self generating life forms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#87473 Apr 23, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>You say none of the writers of the gospel seen Christ in the flesh...1 John 1:1-4 begs to differ. John wrote one of the gospels and 3 other epistles. John was at the foot of the cross and Jesus asked him to take care of his mother Mary.
Historians will tell you that John was perhaps the last gospel written and it definitely was not written by John the disciple.

I don't think there are even any Christian experts who think that any of the gospels were written by people who actually knew and saw Jesus.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87474 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm quoting the science myth of spontaneous self generating life forms.
nmo. no you clearly are not. not even close.

another example of you talking about a concept you don't even begin to grasp. seems to be the only thing you ever do...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87475 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, the Bible tells us what there was before time. Because you do not except it is your problem not ours.
We know you don't
but the bible is full of proven lies and falsehoods, so nothing in it is credible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#87476 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but the bible is full of proven lies and falsehoods, so nothing in it is credible.
Have you watched the various creatards jump through hoops,stand up on their hind legs and beg, and do various other tricks in trying to defend the indefensible terribly failed Tyre prophesy? It is fun to mention it just to see them go crazy.
KJV

United States

#87477 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>nmo. no you clearly are not. not even close.

another example of you talking about a concept you don't even begin to grasp. seems to be the only thing you ever do...
Please enlighten me.......

Explain the first life.
KJV

United States

#87478 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but the bible is full of proven lies and falsehoods, so nothing in it is credible.
Please feel free to list them.
KJV

United States

#87479 Apr 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Have you watched the various creatards jump through hoops,stand up on their hind legs and beg, and do various other tricks in trying to defend the indefensible terribly failed Tyre prophesy? It is fun to mention it just to see them go crazy.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/07...

"A cosmologist has created a mathematical model that he says shows space-time, contrary to common wisdom, did not begin with the Big Bang. Instead, the model suggests a universe pretty much like the one we live in today existed before the event, except it was contracting instead of expanding. If ever proven, the idea could force a complete rethinking of the origins of the cosmos and perhaps even open a doorway to an endless future.
The Big Bang--the sudden and extremely rapid expansion of space-time that began 13.7 billion years ago--is generally accepted among scientists as the beginning of the universe. However, they have long puzzled over a paradox that the event caused in the mathematical calculations of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything was thought to be crammed into a singularity--a space with no dimensions--that also contained infinite density. Einstein couldn't explain how such a state could give rise to a universe of finite density and possibly finite dimensions. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena put it more succinctly: "Everyone's calculations show the universe started from a singularity," he says, "but no one believes it."

Most cosmologists have come to think that quantum mechanics--something unknown during Einstein's time--could hold the key to this conundrum. According to quantum mechanics, random activity on an extremely tiny scale can affect the outcome of events vast distances away and involving gigantic masses. For example, adherents of this theory believe that the current universe turned out so lumpy--with clusters of galaxies in some areas and nearly empty space in others--because of quantum fluctuations at the moment of the Big Bang.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/07...
KJV

United States

#87480 Apr 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Have you watched the various creatards jump through hoops,stand up on their hind legs and beg, and do various other tricks in trying to defend the indefensible terribly failed Tyre prophesy? It is fun to mention it just to see them go crazy.
"But so far quantum mechanics has not been able to explain where the universe came from in the first place. Although most cosmologists think it sprang forth from nothingness along with the forces of nature, theoretical physicist Martin Bojowald of Pennsylvania State University in University Park thinks his mathematical model points to something even stranger: The cosmos is a leftover from a previous manifestation of existence.

Bojowald's model is based on a new and developing line of theoretical reasoning called Loop Quantum Gravity, which attempts to reconcile Einstein's theory with quantum mechanics. As Bojowald reported online in the 1 July Nature Physics, the model shows that at the moment of the Big Bang, the current universe had a minimum volume that was not zero and carried a huge but finite amount of energy. Furthermore, the calculations strongly suggest that the current universe actually received a kick–start from the dying epoch of a previous, contracting universe. They do so by showing that the previous universe could not have compacted itself into a singularity, as general relativity predicts, because at extremes of temperature and pressure, gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive. As a result, gravitational energy grew so large as the previous universe contracted that it created a "Big Bounce," as Bojowald calls it, which ignited the current expansion. With some luck, he says, it might be possible to find clues about what the previous universe was like from more detailed observations and models of quantum mechanics.

Far-fetched or not, Carroll thinks Bojowald's model represents a "good thing to be doing," because somehow cosmologists are going to have to resolve the singularity dilemma, and although his conclusions might not provide the correct answer, it's "not premature to be asking the questions."

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87481 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please enlighten me.......
Explain the first life.
the scientific theory on abiogenesis is not what you stated. not at all.

no human knows where or how first life came to be. no-one.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87482 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Please feel free to list them.
done too many times already. you know them. proven lies.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#87483 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/07...
"A cosmologist has created a mathematical model that he says shows space-time, contrary to common wisdom, did not begin with the Big Bang. Instead, the model suggests a universe pretty much like the one we live in today existed before the event, except it was contracting instead of expanding. If ever proven, the idea could force a complete rethinking of the origins of the cosmos and perhaps even open a doorway to an endless future.
The Big Bang--the sudden and extremely rapid expansion of space-time that began 13.7 billion years ago--is generally accepted among scientists as the beginning of the universe. However, they have long puzzled over a paradox that the event caused in the mathematical calculations of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything was thought to be crammed into a singularity--a space with no dimensions--that also contained infinite density. Einstein couldn't explain how such a state could give rise to a universe of finite density and possibly finite dimensions. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena put it more succinctly: "Everyone's calculations show the universe started from a singularity," he says, "but no one believes it."
Most cosmologists have come to think that quantum mechanics--something unknown during Einstein's time--could hold the key to this conundrum. According to quantum mechanics, random activity on an extremely tiny scale can affect the outcome of events vast distances away and involving gigantic masses. For example, adherents of this theory believe that the current universe turned out so lumpy--with clusters of galaxies in some areas and nearly empty space in others--because of quantum fluctuations at the moment of the Big Bang.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/07...
What does that have to do with the terribly failed prophesy of Tyre?

Or evolution for that matter?

As I have said before scientists are not sure if there was or was not a "before the Big Bang". Evolution occurred regardless of how the universe started. Or perhaps it has always existed.
KJV

United States

#87485 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>done too many times already. you know them. proven lies.
Can't list them then.
KJV

United States

#87486 Apr 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What does that have to do with the terribly failed prophesy of Tyre?

Or evolution for that matter?

As I have said before scientists are not sure if there was or was not a "before the Big Bang". Evolution occurred regardless of how the universe started. Or perhaps it has always existed.
"Such a scenario isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Our universe is expanding and becoming increasingly dilute, and the high-entropy future will be one in which space is essentially empty. But quantum mechanics assures us that empty space is not a quiet, boring place; it’s alive and bubbling with quantum fluctuations—ephemeral, virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. According to a theory known as the “inflationary universe scenario,” all we need is for a tiny patch of space to be filled with a very high density of dark energy—energy that is inherent in the fabric of space itself. That dark energy will fuel a spontaneous, super-accelerated expansion, stretching the infinitesimal patch to universal proportions.

Empty space, in which omnipresent quantum fields are jiggling back and forth, is a natural, high-entropy state for the universe. Eventually (and we’re talking about a really, really big eventually) the fluctuations will conspire in just the right way to fill a tiny patch of space with dark energy, setting off the ultra-fast expansion. To any forms of life arising afterward, such as us, the inflation would look like a giant explosion from which the universe originated, and the quiescent background—the other universes—would be completely unobservable. Such an occurrence would look exactly like the Big Bang and the universe we experience.
The most appealing aspect of this idea, Chen and I have argued, is that over the vast scale of the entire universe, time is actually symmetric and the laws truly don’t care about which direction it is moving. In our patch of the cosmos, time just so happens to be moving forward because of its initial low entropy, but there are others where this is not the case. The far past and the far future are filled with these other baby universes, and they would each think that the other had its arrow of time backwards. Time’s arrow isn’t a basic aspect of the universe as a whole, just a hallmark of the little bit we see. Over a long enough period of time, a baby universe such as ours would have been birthed into existence naturally. Our observable universe and its hundred billion galaxies is just one of those things that happens every once in a while, and its arrow of time is just a quirk of chance due to its beginnings amid a sea of universes.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 min Denny CranesPlace 20,450
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Denny CranesPlace 67,156
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 4 min Princess Hey 6,395
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 9 min Princess Hey 48,260
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 10 min Rider on the Storm 999
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 27 min Mr_FX 61,050
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 28 min Mr_FX 2,380
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 44 min Bad Bex 10,580
All Christmas Carols/Songs and Quotes.. 51 min Truth 55
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 206,953
More from around the web