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
93,521 - 93,540 of 115,223 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#98976 Aug 28, 2013
No more....

Ya'll have a great evening.

Thankz

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98977 Aug 28, 2013
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong's head is hollow ? I don't know bout that.
Not Kong , are you loopy or something?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98978 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
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.
"The EVIDENCE --- that we have, and that you lack --- is that it happened by natural means. "

You are really selling natural ways are nothing exploding and creating everything? Really?

You're right we don't share this lie with you. Thank God!

"First we must remember the definition of the term "universe". Basic definitions state: "Everything that exists anywhere", "The whole collection of existing things", "Everything stated or assumed in a given discussion", etc. That means all substance, energy and the space in between.

Regardless of the size of the universe, let's pretend that we are at the edge where the "universe defining light" is speeding its way out. Here's a simple question: Is the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave part of the universe? Of course it is. It's just as much a part of this universe as the space between the Sun and Earth is. Empty space is also a part of "everything that exists anywhere". No one would deny that.

OK, so if the area 1/2 inch ahead of the light wave is part of the universe, what about a foot ahead? What about a mile? What about a million miles? It's all empty space according to the theory.

Or is it? Remember, the current Big Bang theory is an expanding theory, not a static theory.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98979 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
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.
Part 3

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98980 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
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.
Part 4

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98981 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
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.
Part 5

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98982 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
From your first link:

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

"
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.
Part 6

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98983 Aug 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I see that Tater is still an idiot.

One question, does anyone know why he keeps trumpeting his ignorance?
Gone away from the science shit to just insults because your box is too hard to get out of? Oh and I told you it's Tater Salad to you bub.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98984 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>He has a hollow head you know?
And yours is solid wood.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98985 Aug 28, 2013
glox wrote:
<quoted text>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.
What?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98986 Aug 28, 2013
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>Kong's head is hollow ? I don't know bout that.
There is a large echo.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98987 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Not Kong , are you loopy or something?
Then you?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98988 Aug 28, 2013
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong's head is hollow ? I don't know bout that.
Hmmm.

Not sure Aura was referring to me.

Thanks, anyway.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98989 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 6
The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?
Dude.

Josh Rubak?

Who the hell is he?

Using his website to hawk "Screen Plays"?
and "Investment Opportunities"?

Really?
roly poly

Portland, TN

#98990 Aug 28, 2013
Peter Popoff!! The religious man!!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98991 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a large echo.
We call it repeat spam attacks.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#98992 Aug 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you?
AM is a coward, you will get no where fast with that lunch box.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98993 Aug 28, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
AM is a coward, you will get no where fast with that lunch box.
Cower from the likes of you two, hardly a threat there.
Two mindless boobs brainwashed into thinking god will save them from their awful existence. You can save yourself you know?
Fling your worthless self off a cliff, and end your wretched dismal life of servitude to an imaginary being who if existed would impale you on a dire spear and toss your worthlessness on the fire.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#98994 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Cower from the likes of you two, hardly a threat there.
Two mindless boobs brainwashed into thinking god will save them from their awful existence. You can save yourself you know?
Fling your worthless self off a cliff, and end your wretched dismal life of servitude to an imaginary being who if existed would impale you on a dire spear and toss your worthlessness on the fire.
Did you run out of meds, spaz?

What the hell are you babbling about?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#98995 Aug 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>We call it repeat spam attacks.
Ooooooh, so it is "We" now is it? What, you have a wittle gang do ya?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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? 2014 3 min honeymylove 343
I cyber ice-bucket challenge ...in recognition ... 4 min Brandiiiiiiii 4
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min -Lea- 18,586
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 6 min Old Sam 3,439
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 7 min Adrian DeVine 28,498
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 8 min Old Sam 25,821
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 9 min Old Sam 6,526
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 43 min janice 145,180
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 1 hr Bill 236
Fergson Police Dept. 1 hr CNN Don Queer Lemon 364
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••