Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#87487 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't list them then.
yes, i can, and since i have, the proof that i can is right there for you to peruse at your leisure.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#87489 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.
The gospel of John was not written by John. It and the other gospels were written by anonymous authors

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#87490 Apr 23, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
What was before time?
We don't know that there was a 'before time." We simply don't know many things about 14+-billion years ago.

However we DO know there is no sign of a 'God' at any time.

Sam Harris' little homily abides

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#87491 Apr 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Well in general we know where, at least life as we know it is in a specific cosmic location. So we know about when in a time frame and where , but exactly how is a real cliff hanger.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#87492 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...
There is much very interesting speculation about this unfortunately, us being bound to this space/time continuum have little ability to solve questions about out of this space/time continuum. While it is philosophically entertaining and a brain exorcise to to ponder it, it is a somewhat hollow pursuit.

But we can solve the mystery of life , as that is within human capability. I just wonder if your brain is ready for the belief challenging ramifications that will ensue , should endeavoring it's pursuit finally pay off.

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
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 26 min Rose of Tralee 22,241
last word - first (Jun '12) 27 min Rose of Tralee 7,106
True or False Game 30 min Rose of Tralee 412
What's your tip for the day? 50 min Enzo49 1,221
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 149,098
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 hr Parden Pard 17,752
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 1 hr Parden Pard 29,806
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 3 hr Captn Morgan 6,841
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 10 hr JV Team 44

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE