Evolution vs. Creation

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

Portland, TN

#98953 Aug 28, 2013
Or you can give $1000 to Michael Murdock so he can "plant your seed in heaven". HA HA HA what a laugh that you rubes will believe that mess!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98954 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no clue how creationist define it.
Yes we know. And neither do the creationists. And what's more, you did not know that they did not know, or you did know that they did not know and attempted to defend it anyway.

Predictably, you failed. Epic.
replaytime wrote:
The links I gave for the definition of kind did not come from a creationist site. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing.
You kidding? Home run, bub. It's too late, you threw yourself into play and you got batted outta here.

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98955 Aug 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It has the advantage over sitting on one's tail while driving, tho.
I think I could suffer that, rather than being from pachydermastein . lol
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98956 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we not know time and space didn't already existed long before the BBT, collapsed in on itself and got compressed smaller (like going from one end of the hour glass to the other. The smallness in the bottle neck it has to cross to become into largeness again) space and time was still there, just slowed. Maybe the big bang was space re-expanding again. I am not saying this happened, but we never know.
If you're talking about the bouncing universe hypothesis we don't know for sure (no need for "slowed time" during the bottleneck of the singularity though). Either way it has no real bearing on the Big Bang as far as we know.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#98957 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I think I could suffer that, rather than being from pachydermastein . lol
Lady Gaga with a proboscis? Rambunctious 2 year olds with prehensile tails? ARgh. Some things are bad enough as they already are.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98958 Aug 28, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>So you're admitting that you a con artist.
No not at all I'm a scientist.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98959 Aug 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>We know you don't. That's because you're a reality-denying creationist liar for Jesus.(shrug)
I've also got this pigs jaw bone that is proof that pigs and frogs are capable of breeding.

I call it Misskermitetite

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#98960 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all I'm a scientist.
that lie was so huge that hell just froze over and hell doesn't even exist....
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98961 Aug 28, 2013
So was the Big Bang an explosion?
Or not?

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

#98962 Aug 28, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>So you're admitting that you a con artist.
You're kind of a blooming idiot aren't you?

If you really want to talk about con jobs lets look at your big three.

Your 3 BIG Myths:

1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.

3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#98963 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
So was the Big Bang an explosion?
Or not?
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...
more proof you are no scientist, and can't even understand their work.

the difference between an explosion and the expansion of the universe. why didn't you understand it?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98964 Aug 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Because every well informed Sunday schooler knows creationmuseum.org is wa-ay more credible than nasonline.org

ROFL!
You want something to really laugh at try this on for size......

"The nature of time is such that the influence of the very beginning of the universe stretches all the way into your kitchen—you can make an omelet out of an egg, but you can’t make an egg out of an omelet. Time, unlike space, has an obvious directionality—the view in a mirror makes sense in a way that a movie in reverse never would.
The arrow of time in our universe is puzzling because the fundamental laws of physics themselves are symmetric and don’t seem to discriminate between the past and future. Unlike an egg breaking on the side of a frying pan, the journey of the planets around the sun would look basically the same if we filmed them and ran the movie backwards. Rather, it must be due to the initial conditions of the universe—a fact that makes the nature of time a question for cosmology. Remarkably, the answers we’re beginning to discover are telling us there may be other universes out there in which the arrow of time actually points in reverse.

For some reason, our early universe was an orderly place; as physicists like to say, it had low entropy. Entropy measures the number of ways that you can rearrange the components of a system such that the overall state wouldn’t change considerably. A set of neatly racked billiard balls has a low entropy, since moving one of the balls to another location on the table would change the configuration significantly. Randomly scattered balls are high entropy; we could move a ball or two and nobody would really notice.

Low-entropy configurations naturally evolve into high-entropy ones—as any billiards-break shows—for the simple reason that there are more ways to be high entropy than low entropy. The very beginning of time found our universe in an extremely unnatural and highly organized low-entropy state. It is the process by which it is inevitably relaxing into a more naturally disordered and messy configuration that imprints the unmistakable difference between past and future that we perceive.
Naturally, this leads one to wonder why the Big Bang began in such an unusual state. Attempts to answer this question are wrapped up with the question of time and have led me and my colleague Jennifer Chen to imagine another era before the Big Bang, in which the extremely far past looks essentially the same as the extremely far future. The distinction between past and future doesn’t matter on the scale of the entire cosmos, it’s just a feature we observe locally.

If time is to be symmetric—if the direction of its flow is not to matter throughout the universe—conditions at early times should be similar to those at late times. This idea has previously inspired cosmologists like Thomas Gold to suggest that the universe will someday recollapse and that the arrow of time would reverse. However, we now know that the universe is actually accelerating and seems unlikely to ever recollapse. Even if it did, there is no reason to think that entropy will spontaneously begin to decrease and re-rack the billiard balls. Stephen Hawking once suggested that it would—and he later called that the biggest blunder of his scientific career.

If we don’t want the laws of physics to distinguish arbitrarily between past and future, we can imagine that the universe is really high-entropy in both the far past and the far future. How can a high-entropy past be reconciled with what we know about our observable universe—that it began with unnaturally low entropy? Only by imagining that there is an ultra-large-scale universe beyond our reach, where entropy can always be increasing without limit, and that if we went far enough back into the past, time would actually be running backwards."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98965 Aug 28, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Because every well informed Sunday schooler knows creationmuseum.org is wa-ay more credible than nasonline.org

ROFL!
Part 2

"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.

Such a scenario is obviously speculative, but it fits in well with modern ideas of a multiverse with different regions of possibly distinct physical conditions. Admittedly, it would be hard to gather experimental evidence for or against this idea. But science doesn’t only need evidence, it also needs to make sense, to tell a consistent story. We can’t turn eggs into omelets, even though the laws of physics seem to be perfectly reversible, and this brute fact demands an explanation. It’s intriguing to imagine that the search for an answer would lead us to the literal ends of the universe."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/time_...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98966 Aug 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>We know you don't. That's because you're a reality-denying creationist liar for Jesus.(shrug)
Oh but I do.... I really do.....

Dud is it true that you're a Christian playing games on these threads?

It just what I heard.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98967 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
So was the Big Bang an explosion?
Or not?
From your first link:

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

"This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. "

And as your second link: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

...all I can suggest is that they were pandering to the masses in that they used a "civilian" definition of the expansion, and not a real accurate/scientific description of what they THINK (mathematically) of what happened.

The thing is...NOBODY knows how the universe came into being.

The EVIDENCE --- that we have, and that you lack --- is that it happened by natural means.

This does not mean that (for me) that there is no God. Or Supernatural Being of any kind.

It just means we (currently) have no evidence for Him/Her/It.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98968 Aug 28, 2013
I see that Tater is still an idiot.

One question, does anyone know why he keeps trumpeting his ignorance?

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98969 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
From your first link:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
"This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe. "
And as your second link: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
...all I can suggest is that they were pandering to the masses in that they used a "civilian" definition of the expansion, and not a real accurate/scientific description of what they THINK (mathematically) of what happened.
The thing is...NOBODY knows how the universe came into being.
The EVIDENCE --- that we have, and that you lack --- is that it happened by natural means.
This does not mean that (for me) that there is no God. Or Supernatural Being of any kind.
It just means we (currently) have no evidence for Him/Her/It.
He has a hollow head you know?
glox

Chicago, IL

#98970 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but I do.... I really do.....
Dud is it true that you're a Christian playing games on these threads?
It just what I heard.
What is the name of advanced alien intelligence are you rambling about? The previous comments are on the edge of insanity....get a grip or take some meds.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98971 Aug 28, 2013
Very late today, I hope all you good people are well.

Many many thanks go out to Chilli, DFS, Joe Stalkarazi, Sock Philosopher, and Ooogah Boogah. Love some of the names. Anyway, so thanks for the fine props you gifted me...they are fully appreciated.

Using a drift net to catch those elusive points floating around here. Stand back.:-)
Sheri

Allentown, PA

#98972 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He has a hollow head you know?
Kong's head is hollow ? I don't know bout that.

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
News Mississippi pastor trots out horse in wedding d... 1 min Torres 101
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min wichita-rick 159,866
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 9 min andet1987 31,535
Word Association. (Nov '10) 13 min Mega Monster 17,229
Life is incomplete without ..... (what?) (Feb '14) 19 min wichita-rick 747
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 23 min andet1987 41,388
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 28 min andet1987 8,203
News Oregon farmers agree slugs are a problem _ but ... 1 hr Xstain Fatwass Ce... 29
Word Association (Jun '10) 1 hr say it aint so 26,955
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 hr flbadcatowner 171
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 39,980
More from around the web