Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99818 Sep 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is some severe reaching. We have known about ice ages for a long time and we also know that they were accompanied by significant falls in the sea level. Thus the accumulated ice balanced by a fall in ocean volume.
And as pointed out earlier, Pangea was not the original supercontinent, if there even was one. Pangaea was one in a series of supercontinents that have come together and split apart repeatedly over the whole of earth's history. It formed 300 million years ago...so is recent by the standards of earth time.
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99819 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
There has been no supercontinent during man's existence. Homo sapiens is only 200,000 years old as a species. Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago. Yes, there is some water in the mantle. The amount is debated. The claim of two oceans worth is not well supported at all yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99820 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
Ah, now I see you're back to exaggerated BS. You're forgetting those EXCEEDINGLY serious flaws in your claims:

1 - As global water height increases the volume of water increases in proportion. You are claiming underwater reservoirs are enough to account for this, but that would make a highly significant portion of the crust would be floating upon water. In reality it's floating on magma. This is especially problematic due to the pressures of keeping this water contained, plus the fact that temperatures increase the further down you go. Your water is now steam and ready to explode at near nuclear levels. Not surprisingly, science does not support this.

2 - There is no mechanism for a sudden convenient flood to occur at this time.

3 - Again, the heat created from moving literally billions of tons of water in mass (and possibly landmasses too) will turn the Earth into another sun.

4 - Noah's boat is only made of wood. What you need is the USS Enterprise.

5 - Noah's family is not genetically viable to repopulate the entire Earth. If the crew numbered 50 or more then you'd probably be okay, however no-one would be okay if they're all crispy-critters.

6 - You are still attempting to justify Goddidit with magic. You don't NEED evidence. Evidence is irrelevant to your position.
No Surprise wrote:
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
It's my opinion that the writer purposefully described a flat Earth. But that's when I'm told we're not meant to take the Bible THAT literally. At this point all we have are our opinions on how it is "meant" to be interpreted. This pretty much invalidates it from being useful as either a historical or scientific document.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99821 Sep 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no supercontinent during man's existence. Homo sapiens is only 200,000 years old as a species. Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago. Yes, there is some water in the mantle. The amount is debated. The claim of two oceans worth is not well supported at all yet.
Wee nitpick, a tad more than two oceans, due to the circumference getting larger as the ocean swells:

http://www.mathatube.com/images/ttar_concentr...

The volume of the outer ring is greater than the next one in.

:-)
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99822 Sep 20, 2013

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99823 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they didn't.
Underwater vents are cooled by the huge mass of surrounding water, but volcanos on land throw out lava and magma. If you claim that there's so much water being spewed out at such tremendous forces and quantities as to flood the entire world the water would evaporate as steam. What's more if you're claiming the entire world's geographical landscape changed along with it, then you are essentially frying the entire Earth.
Noah's boat is only made of wood.
If humanity was to have sprung only from his family (SERIOUS genetic issues aside) then quite literally there is no-one left alive on planet Eatrh today to talk about it.
Now we can get back to the issue of your invisible magic being. None of this is a problem for invisible magic wizardry. For when faced with an absence of, or contradicting evidence, simply invoke the magic wizard who waves his wand and fixes everything how your favourite religious book says it is.
Evidence does not matter.
You and others keep referring to magic wizardry, not I. I stated the writer described a process that we now know takes place in the ocean/sea 'deep'.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99824 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider this. In thought we use at most 10% of our brain's capacity. Consider if a single individual on this earth was able to use 100% of their brain in thought.
The Ten-Percent Myth
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent...

Do we only use 10% of our brains?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121112-do-w...

Ten percent of brain myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_b...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99825 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen.
No, one cannot prove a negative. But science has shown that there were never, nor COULD there have been, two distinct "first humans."

Such an idea is contradicted by 1.) all the genetic evidence, and 2.) the fossil evidence which shows that homo sapiens evolved gradually out of earlier, proto-human species.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist.
No, but there is plenty of evidence that someone named Moses did NOT write the first five books of the Bible. It's called the Documentary Hypothesis, and it is what is taught in all the mainstream Christian seminaries, divinity schools and university religion departments in the world.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it DID happen, which is what counts in archeology. 400,000 people "wandering for 40 years" in a fairly confined space like the Saudi desert would have left plenty of traces, none of which are found.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99826 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You are attempting to use the can't prove a negative principle as an argument. While this may be true, what it also means is that you have no evidence. Also in the case of Adam and Eve, the story is quite simply NOT genetically viable, unless there were already plenty of other humans around for them to reproduce with. Therefore the argument would have to change from "You can't prove Adam and Eve didn't happen." to "You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't made by magic!"
You're right. We can't. Meanwhile back in the real world, Adam and Eve is just that - a story.
I didn't say I had evidence. Others here claim they have evidence to prove what's an unprovable story didn't happen.
The story actually fits the theory of evolution. That an 'unknown' source created a single biological source being asexual that reproduced itself till a variant evolved so that being asexual was not a necessity anymore.
In the story we have an 'unknown' source that created a single biological source from whence a variant came forth so opposites were needed to reproduce life.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99827 Sep 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Photons and Kerr space and singularities, do not experience time. So they exist independent of the passage of time.
This is in agreement with GR.
Aren't you forgetting something? If it was not for time you would not be here to observe your singularity :-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99830 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.
The fact is that for more than 2000 years people did write about a person named Moses. And that's more circumstantial evidence for his existence than you'll ever have for his non-existence.
There is no such thing as having 'solid evidence' to prove the 'nonexistence' of something/someone as you claim it.
The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.
You write:
“Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.”

Of course the story is unverified. It is just a Biblical myth. We know mankind (Homo-sapiens) has been around at least 200,000 years…the bone and DNA evidence prove this. We know that there were other hominids (Homo-neanderthalensis and probably 2 other ones) roaming the earth when we humans were. We know that we came from a population, not a single set of parents. We have gene and blood evidence for our early earthly beginnings and there is no room for a God creating us like the Bible says.

The Bible doesn't even closely resemble what we know happened.

We and the Neanderthals share genes/blood….that alone disproves the Adam and Eve story. Proves we had a common ancestor way back in time.

There IS evidence that a man named Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch. There is also evidence of time anachronisms in the text....a sure sign it was written much latter then advertised.

There is a total lack of evidence that the Exodus happened. Archaeologists have been scouring the Sinai desert for over a hundred years looking for some/any evidence of over a million people crisscrossing the area for 40 years, and have found ZERO evidence.

You write:
“The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.”

The fact that I believe the Adam and Eve story is myth is predicated on real evidence, not some brainwashing I suffered in Sunday school, or at home. Your Genesis theory is no more real than the Rig Veda. The Adam and Eve story is pure myth, as is the Exodus and other things in there.

You need to learn ABOUT the Bible, not whats IN the Bible. Whole new world out there my friend.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99831 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
You write:
"Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent."

Why would he be describing a super-continent when it had been 200 million years since there was one.

If in fact whoever wrote the story actually knew something like this it would have been a perfect opportunity for God to inject a little something that would prove His existence to modern day mankind.

Your speculation is just that....speculation.

There was no Noachian flood....proven.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99832 Sep 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>"He didn't"

Aha, that's what I thought....there never was a God, he's just a myth.
No that's the same thing.
God was never created he is the creator!
Because God was not created does not mean there is no God.

It's blind statements like this that will cost you a price I wish on few to ever have to go through.

http://youtu.be/l5Qn7mFU4EA
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99833 Sep 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Who feeds you all this wrong information about science??

It (Big Bang) is an attempt to interpret the facts available in a natural light. Science DOES NOT deal with magical stuff....which the Bible uses to explain a natural world.
But it does.

Steven Hawkins:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.

" all the laws of physics would have broken down. "

Magic not science. No laws of physics then its magic.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99834 Sep 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>I don't, I am not a physicist. Left overs maybe?.:-)
It takes about a billion years for the universe to reach the point where it could start creating so now a 14.8 year old star hast to fit in a 12.7 billion year old star creating universe.

It doesn't fit does it?

More proof that the BB is a myth.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#99835 Sep 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Steven HAWKING has been wrong before.

Again, who is feeding you this wrong science.
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.

Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?

Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99836 Sep 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Where can I go to verify this star story??

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99837 Sep 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Will you stop fixating?

I know I've explained the Rapid Expansion Phase to you before.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99838 Sep 20, 2013
It's made up nonsense.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#99839 Sep 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Asking again; where can I find a link or more data on this star story??

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
Is it possible to....... 2 min Dr Wu 576
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 3 min Princess Hey 232
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 3 min andet1987 26,689
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min Jennifer Renee 7,579
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 9 min andet1987 260
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 10 min Princess Hey 311
Worker spends 90 minutes stuck in mud up to waist 10 min wichita-rick 3
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min wichita-rick 152,491
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 57 min Sarah 25,703
More from around the web