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 (Page 4,532)

Showing posts 90,621 - 90,640 of111,778
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95870
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Definitely not a traditional explosion, chemical or nuclear. An explosive growth, yes, and explosion in the traditional way of ripping something apart, not so much.
<quoted text>
Some do, some don't. It depends upon how massive they are. Are sun is not massive enough to blow up.
<quoted text>
They get hot. Most of the heat is radiated off in some sort of electromagnetic radiation. We have a technical name for that. We call it star-light.
<quoted text>
It got hot and started to emit that energy mostly as electromagnetic radiation. We have a technical term for that. It is called sunlight.
<quoted text>
Here, they can do better than I can:
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/su...
Long story short, the sun started as a huge cloud of gas and dust, possibly as a result of the shock wave of a supernova. The concentration of gas and dust was high enough that it started to collapse under the force of gravity. As it collapsed the unbalanced rotational inertial caused it, and its planets to rotate. As it collapsed its temperature went up too, I do believe that is Boyle's law, though you could use the ideal gas law to explain it. Eventually it got hot enough for fusion to take place inside our sun.
<quoted text>
Me, no. Perhaps a physicist could
What is a traditional explosion? an atomic bomb? An explosion is an explosion whether we're talking about fission or fusion of atoms. It is clear that the theory of big bang implies some type of explosion.

Even the sun at this stage experience a type of explosion in its atmosphere. We call it solar storm or solar flare.

According to scientists, new elements are produced via nuclear reaction in the stars called nucleosynthesis. We have a technical term for that, we call it star dust. ;-)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95871
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a traditional explosion? an atomic bomb? An explosion is an explosion whether we're talking about fission or fusion of atoms. It is clear that the theory of big bang implies some type of explosion.
Even the sun at this stage experience a type of explosion in its atmosphere. We call it solar storm or solar flare.
According to scientists, new elements are produced via nuclear reaction in the stars called nucleosynthesis. We have a technical term for that, we call it star dust. ;-)
The difference my dear is simple imagine this.
Explosions are matter and energy, the release of the energy spreads matter out from a specific point of origin. This explosive effect can be traced to a specific location by following a trail of matter from ground zero out.

The expansion of the universe , is specifically free from matter and purely a real estate equation. The expansion of space/time itself free of a physical point and matter itself.
It is every point and no point specifically. It is free of matter and energy in the traditional way of sensing it.

The expansion of the universe is he creation of space.
Maybe this can help you understand.

http://vimeo.com/19602286

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95872
Aug 1, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no-one says there was an explosion, except people that don't understand the big bang theory...
Really?

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Astronomers Detect Most Powerful Explosion Since Big Bang

18 May 1998

The energy released in a cosmic gamma-rayburst detected in December 1997 is the most energy ever detected from an explosion in theUniverse, perhaps making it the most powerful explosion since the creation of the Universe in the Big Bang.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/ne...

big bang

(bg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago.

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

Most astronomers now believe that the universe began around 12 billion years ago in a cataclysmic explosion we call the Big Bang

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95873
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Both bad math and bad statistics! It's a two fer.

Your estimation of atheists in America is low by a factor of over 2. And no, 97.7% has not "left our congregation". Wherever did you come up with such a crazy number?

Lastly, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Why do creatards think that you cannot accept the theory of evolution and Christianity at the same time?
Sub, these are not MY numbers these number are from the CIA (central intelligent agency) and by Encyclopedia Britannica and Pew Research Center.

There is nothing wrong with these numbers other then they deflate your ego.

2%. That's it, that's all the atheist can claim out of the whole worlds population 2%.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95874
Aug 1, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>So it's about money then?

Not that I'm surprised....
No but I'll take your money.:)

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95875
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Your numbers are terribly wrong and low.

Check out this more recent, more accurate, more thorough survey. Atheism is healthier than it ever has been:

http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/...
Again they are not my numbers they are the numbers of 3 of the most respect agency.

Hard to take? 2%.

There it is 3 major agency.

The United States of America's Central Intelligent Agency.

the Pew Research Center

Encyclopedia Britannica
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95876
Aug 1, 2013
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Why would scientists support Evolution with no evidence?
I wonder if any of these religious zombies
have ever considered the possibility of
evolution being God's method of creation?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95877
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I imagine that that my actual religion of Christianity once represented only 2.3% of the population. I don't think it was a joke then just because of the number of people that followed it.

I wonder what went wrong in your life that you lost faith and decided to promote lies and attack people to feel better about yourself. Seems like that is an actual danger to Christianity and spreading much faster than atheism from what I see here.
Lies? Me? LOL

2% buddy that's fact.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#sectio...

A 2010 survey published in Encyclopedia Britannica found that is atheists at about 2.0%.

Another study assessing religiosity among scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power.

Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education are associated with increased religious participation and religious practice in daily life.

According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, people describing themselves as "atheist" were 2% of the total population in the US.

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

According to the International Bulletin of Missionary Research, an academic journal, "about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day."

Another survey attributed to Britannica shows the population of atheists at around 2.4% of the world's population

While there are more atheists than ever before as global population continually increases, the atheist percentage of the total population seem to be declining

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

Sources outside of Wikipedia give differing estimates:

The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.39%(of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, atheists 2.01%

persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities,

In 2012, an article entitled Atheism in decline by Nigel Tomes declared:

In 1970 atheists (those avowing there is no God) numbered 166 million worldwide; that was almost one-in-twenty—4.5% of the globe’s population. By 2012 atheists’ number is estimated at 137 million. That’s a decline of almost 30 million. Since world population is growing, atheists’ share declined to less than one-in-fifty—under 2% in 2012. Put differently, every 24 hours there are 800 fewer atheists in the world! Atheism is in decline.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95880
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So there was no explosion? So you also think stars don't explode when they die? What happens during a nuclear reaction in the stars? What happened when hydrogen were fused to helium in the sun? How did the sun form?
Can you explain how the "expansion" in the beginning of the universe happened?
stars do explode, but they are not singularities. the workings of stars an fusion do not come into play as there were no atoms to fuse, there were no protons or electrons, there were not even any quarks.

all the cosmologists i have read say that is one of the greatest misconceptions about the big bang theory, that is was not an explosion like a supernova...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95881
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gary wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder if any of these religious zombies
have ever considered the possibility of
evolution being God's method of creation?
Does Evolution contradict the Bible?
Is it possible to believe in evolution and still be a Christian? If being a Christian means believing that the Bible is the authentic, trustworthy Word of God and that Christ is our Creator and Savior, the answer is “No.” One cannot believe these things and also believe in evolution as the explanation for the origin of life on our earth as we know it.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95882
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The difference my dear is simple imagine this.
Explosions are matter and energy, the release of the energy spreads matter out from a specific point of origin. This explosive effect can be traced to a specific location by following a trail of matter from ground zero out.
The expansion of the universe , is specifically free from matter and purely a real estate equation. The expansion of space/time itself free of a physical point and matter itself.
It is every point and no point specifically. It is free of matter and energy in the traditional way of sensing it.
The expansion of the universe is he creation of space.
Maybe this can help you understand.
http://vimeo.com/19602286
I don't get it. You call that simple? What do you mean by expansion of universe is free from matter, free of physical point?
What is the traditional way of sensing it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95883
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Does Evolution contradict the Bible?
Is it possible to believe in evolution and still be a Christian? If being a Christian means believing that the Bible is the authentic, trustworthy Word of God and that Christ is our Creator and Savior, the answer is “No.” One cannot believe these things and also believe in evolution as the explanation for the origin of life on our earth as we know it.
But the bible itself proves that your god is man-made myth...and jesus also.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95884
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
You make me laugh with your 'mind your 9th commandment' entries in just about all of your posts, lol!
What reason would creationists have to lie?
There is no monetary reward for believing in creationism.
On the other hand, Evo-scientists have a very lucrative, financial gain and motive for keeping their story spread.
(psssst...they get to keep their jobs)
No monetary reward?

Really? You mean that these fundamentalist preacher guys
and women like we see on the tube aren't getting monetary
rewards? Jeez, some of them have their own private jet
airplanes to fly around in. They live in mansions and
hang gold and diamonds of their blond bimbo wives. They're
shepherds with big flocks that they sheer every Sunday.

It's a damn good living.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95885
Aug 1, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>stars do explode, but they are not singularities. the workings of stars an fusion do not come into play as there were no atoms to fuse, there were no protons or electrons, there were not even any quarks.
all the cosmologists i have read say that is one of the greatest misconceptions about the big bang theory, that is was not an explosion like a supernova...
I think I see what you're trying to say. There couldn't have been an explosion of any form in the beginning of time because matter was not formed yet. Is that right?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95887
Aug 1, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I see what you're trying to say. There couldn't have been an explosion of any form in the beginning of time because matter was not formed yet. Is that right?
no,not at all, i was pointing out that your comparing it to stars exploding and nuclear fusion was ridiculous and showed you didn't even grasp the basic physics of the issue.

i thought i used simple language, obviously not simple enough...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95888
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get it. You call that simple? What do you mean by expansion of universe is free from matter, free of physical point?
What is the traditional way of sensing it?
Explosion is a traditional way of seeing something increase in size.

Explosions are confined to within time , an event within space.
Expansion is the stretching of time and space.
Explosions do not make the total size of space or time larger, but spread things out within it.
Expansion makes the total size larger.
Explosion makes things spread out in space.
Expansion makes more space and time to spread matter out in.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95889
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get it. You call that simple? What do you mean by expansion of universe is free from matter, free of physical point?
What is the traditional way of sensing it?
An explosion makes debris spread out all over Texas.
Expansion makes Texas even bigger than it was.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95890
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no,not at all, i was pointing out that your comparing it to stars exploding and nuclear fusion was ridiculous and showed you didn't even grasp the basic physics of the issue.
i thought i used simple language, obviously not simple enough...
No you try to simplify it because you're unable to explain what you mean.

I simply pointed out the different types of explosion that occurs in the universe, so I wasn't specifically referring to one type of explosion. Please, you're going to attempt to explain physics, then you would already understand that explosions is a common phenomena in the universe no matter what kind.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95891
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Gary wrote:
<quoted text>
No monetary reward?
Really? You mean that these fundamentalist preacher guys
and women like we see on the tube aren't getting monetary
rewards? Jeez, some of them have their own private jet
airplanes to fly around in. They live in mansions and
hang gold and diamonds of their blond bimbo wives. They're
shepherds with big flocks that they sheer every Sunday.
It's a damn good living.
lying to thousands or millions of people is a good living?

it may be lucrative, but it is not good...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95892
Aug 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> An explosion makes debris spread out all over Texas.
Expansion makes Texas even bigger than it was.
Some scientists believe that both explosion and expansion of the universe are real.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 90,621 - 90,640 of111,778
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••