The Big Bang Theory

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

ok. As far as I am aware the big bang theory is the best we have for the origins of the universe. According to one of my physicist/math friends, it is possible that if conditions are right you could have big bangs creating other big bangs, or even a cycle of big bangs that go in a circular fashion. Depending on how you want to describe time, then it can move in a circle, but at that point its just guesses about the nature of reality. The big bang is a usefull theory, and has some evidence(or so I understand) but its still far from concrete.

[pbolduc 0]

Well if you believe in God ans stuff you have to ask the question who made god or where did come from

This is not the question we need to ask ourselves. I believe in God, but I can't tell you how He came into being. I believe the Bible. He has always been, and always will be. That is why it is called religional. "A theory requiring faith".

However, for those of you who have bought the lie of the big bang theory, here is a perspective that you may have not considered. You cannot prove evolution. It is a theroy full of holes that is being programmed into our youth in a state run school system.

Where did the matter come from that made up the so called first universe. How did it come into being? Where did the energy come from to cause it to crumble into a dot? Also, where did the energy come from to cause this dot to spin and explode?

I turn 47 on Thursday, it has been a while since I was in a science class, but isn't it the universal law of angular motion, or something to that effect, that states; all of the pieces of a spinning object that explodes will rotate in the same direction of that of the origanal piece? This is a law of nature.

That being the case, how is it that if all of the matter in the universe came from this spinning dot, why don't all of the planets, moons, etc. spin in the same direction? You can't change a law of nature. It is phyically impossible for any orphan object to spin in the opposite direction of the parent object which exploded, yet we have planets and moons spinning in different directions.

There are countless examples that prove the big bang theory and evolution are a false theory, made up by men and women who choose to believe in it. They can't prove it, only theorize. If they can't prove it, they have to believe in it by faith. Just as my faith in God is a religion, likewise, so is their faith in evolution.

The only difference is that their religion is being publically supported in our state run school system, and it is almost a crime now a days to even mention Jesus in school. A bit unfair I would say.

There are two side to every coin. If you believe in evolution, it is only because it is the only perspective you have been taught to believe. Hitler said that if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it.

It is not my attempt here to try to convert anyone. Let each man work out his own salvation, but if your faith in evolution is based on what you learned in school, I would encourage you to explore the other alternative, or at least try to find documented scientific evidence to support your theory.

A few more questions:

The source or mouth of the Colorado river is below the rim of the Grand Canyon. Are you trying to tell me that the Colorado river flowed up hill for millions of years to carve the canyon? Another law of nature broken!

Where on the planet can I find the Geological column intact as taught in the textbooks? No where!

The scientists judge that age of a fossil by the layer of strata it was found in. And, on the other hand, they judge the age of the strata layer by the fossils that are found in it. Doesn't make sense to me.

Why won't they carbon date a dinosaur bone? Maybe because the bone is not millions and millions of years old and carbon dating proves it. The true age of a dinosaur bone would prove the theory of evolution wrong.

If you believe in evolution it may be because it is the only perspective that you have been taught. Here again I encourage you to do your own research.

Check out http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/.
In the header click the online seminar link and download the seven seminars evolution. (approxiamately 11 hours of scientific evidence proving the falsehood of evolution)

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Ok, You have a lot of incorrect information in your post. What happens with angular momentum is NOT that objects coming off a spinning object continue to rotate the same direction they did before. The move in straight lines in a direction tangent to the point of the circle they were moving in before.

As for evolution, Let me run a quick check to make sure you have some idea what you are talking about.

1. Evolution and Natural selection are two different(though related) things.

2. Evolution is the fact that species change over time(note that this is a fact, it can be demonstrated in a Lab, and I have personally done so. Its not even hard). Specifically, the genes and gene frequency across a species change. That does not mean a species has to stop 'being a species' or anything like that, though that can happen(called speciation).

3. Natural Selection is a theory of how evolution occurs. There is some disagreement over whether or not Natural Selection accounts for all of the evolutionary changes we have evidence for. Evidence 'disproving' Natural Selection does *NOT* disprove evolution. For instance, scientist Stephen Gould has an opposing theory called punctuated equalibrium. In a lot of ways it is similar to NS, but I don't know enough about punctuated equalibrium to go into details.

4. Natural Selection generally states that organisms change over time due to differences in breeding. Specifically, those organisms in a species that produce more offspring than other organisms have more of their genes in the next generation, therefore further increaseing the statistical probablilty of this happening again(creating a genetic drift towards the more 'fit' genes). This *happens* and is a fact, and can be demonstrated in a lab(which I have also done personally). The only question is whether this effect(and side effects like speciation) can account for the diversity found on earth.

5. Whether or not you think that NS is a theory capable explaining all of the diversity on earth, there are some more things you should know about evolution.
Specifically, in order for evolution to not occur(as in, in order for evolution to be false, given that we *Know* that people pass down genetic information via breeding), the following things must *ALL* be true.

1. No migration or separation a species into different, distinctly breeding groups(This is false, therefore evolution must happen)
2. Infinite population of a species(obviously false, therefore evolution must happen)
3. Random mating within a species(also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen)
4. No natural selection, as in, no predators or natural events occuring that cull out organisms in a species due in any way to genetic factors(like speed, size, etc). (Also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen).

There is one more rule, I believe, but I don't remember what it is. Still, It should be obvious that 'Evolution Happens', because it has to.
For those of you who do not understand why the above rules must *all* be true in order for evolution to not occur, allow me to explain:

1. If part of a species is separated from the rest of its species such that the two parts do not mate, then evolution will occur. This is because the part that broke off will no longer have the same gene distribution as the original, full species as a single group(the exception being that they break off group has identical gene frequency and also has infinite population). As such, breeding will create a change in the genetic makeup of that group of the species. If this happens long enough, it may become a separate species entirely and no longer be able to breed with the original species(this is called speciation).

2. Infinite population. If a species does not have infinite population, then some genes, even if there is random mating, will become more common by shear chance. This is the definition of evolution. That it happens by luck doesn't matter. Since populations are not infinite, evolution happens, end of story. That doesn't mean it happens fast(evolution is a slow process in any case).

3. Random mating. If organisms in a species do not mate randomly, then certain gene combinations will occur more frequently than others. This will cause a genetic shift. This is evolution. Since organisms do not randomly mate, evolution happens.

4.No Natural Selection. If predators, or the environment, cause organisms in a species to not breed with equal intensity as other organism in a species, then the genetic makeup of the species will shift as certain unhelpfull genes breed less, and therefore make up less of the gene pool. This will happen even if there is random mating. Since natural selection occurs(once again, whether or not it explains everything is irrelevent. It DOES occur, proveable so.)then (say it with me now!) EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

And because I am tired of typing about this, allow me to finish up with a quick link that might help dispell some other silliness.
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Thank you.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Oh, and just to pre-empt any more silliness, allow me to do a quick rundown about the nature of scientific evidence and 'proof'.Modern science does not arise from 'proof', it arises from a lack of disproof. For instance, you cannot prove gravity exists positively. Sure, you can drop a ball and then say 'AH HAH! SEE!!! it happens!', but this is not proof that the ball will ALWAYS drop, which is what the theory of gravity states(provided you are in a gravity field generated by a mass, yadda yadda). Instead, ALL science rests on the lack of DISPROOF. Gravity states that the ball will fall, therefore, as soon as we find a ball that doesn't fall, we either have to toss gravity out the window, or adjust the theory to account for the new information.So, whenever people ask for scientific 'proof' for anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, they are asking for something that can't be given. Thats just not how science works. In mathematics, you CAN create proofs of the positive sort, and some parts of science, which are based directly on such mathematics, can gain that advantage as well. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule. So, given that science advances through lack of disproof, this means certain things must be true for any scientific theory. The big important one is 'disproveability'. In order to be disproveable, a theory must predict what will occur in the future. It is easy to explain why something happened in the past, we can explain it all sorts of ways, and there is NO way to *prove* that our old explanation was false, no matter what it was. However, it IS possible to take that same explanation, set up a new situation, and see if they explanation is capable of predicting the new situation in a consistent manner. For instance, I can say that a genie pushed a ball towards the earth, which is why it fell. There is no way to show that this is false without going back in time, or figuring out a way that is guaranteed to show invisible genies.So, a theory must predict what will occur in the future under specific circumstances. But this, too, poses a potential problem. What if there are two theories that both predict the same thing will happen, and both correctly predict an occurance. How do you know which one is correct? Moreover, who does one know that it is JUST those two possibilities, and not a third one we just haven't thought of yet?The answer is, initially, you don't. The only way to know which one is correct is by having it be the most successful at correctly predicting future events. The other way is breadth and precision. For instance, we could say that a ball will always fall, or we could say that a ball will fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2. Both are correct, but the second is more specific. For breadth, we could say that a ball will fall when released or we could say that any object heavier than air will fall when released. The second has greater depth, and it is therefore considered the better theory, because it predicts more. Note that the more specific or broad a theory, the more ways it can fail. Because such a theories opens itself up to more ways of disproof, it is considered more impressive when disproofs do not occur, and is therefore considered a better theory.SO, for the purposes of any debate about science, evolution,etc, please keep this information in mind. Anyone requestion scientific *proof* that such and such happened a long time ago is just blowing smoke and trying to sound impressive. The best they can ask for is evidence that such an occurence was likely.On a different note, much appologies to the mods/admins for allowing these posts to once again get things off topic, but I tried with my post 2 posts up. In any case, I hope these last two posts will put an end to pointless off-topic chatter.

[pbolduc 0]

Ok, You have a lot of incorrect information in your post.  What happens with angular momentum is NOT that objects coming off a spinning object continue to rotate the same direction they did before.  The move in straight lines in a direction tangent to the point of the circle they were moving in before.

 

As for evolution, Let me run a quick check to make sure you have some idea what you are talking about.

 

1. Evolution and Natural selection are two different(though related) things.

 

2. Evolution is the fact that species change over time(note that this is a fact, it can be demonstrated in a Lab, and I have personally done so.  Its not even hard).  Specifically, the genes and gene frequency across a species change.  That does not mean a species has to stop 'being a species' or anything like that, though that can happen(called speciation).

 

3. Natural Selection is a theory of how evolution occurs.  There is some disagreement over whether or not Natural Selection accounts for all of the evolutionary changes we have evidence for.  Evidence 'disproving' Natural Selection does *NOT* disprove evolution.  For instance, scientist Stephen Gould has an opposing theory called punctuated equalibrium.  In a lot of ways it is similar to NS, but I don't know enough about punctuated equalibrium to go into details.

 

4. Natural Selection generally states that organisms change over time due to differences in breeding.  Specifically, those organisms in a species that produce more offspring than other organisms have more of their genes in the next generation, therefore further increaseing the statistical probablilty of this happening again(creating a genetic drift towards the more 'fit' genes).  This *happens* and is a fact, and can be demonstrated in a lab(which I have also done personally).  The only question is whether this effect(and side effects like speciation) can account for the diversity found on earth.

 

5.  Whether or not you think that NS is a theory capable explaining all of the diversity on earth, there are some more things you should know about evolution. 

Specifically, in order for evolution to not occur(as in, in order for evolution to be false, given that we *Know* that people pass down genetic information via breeding), the following things must *ALL* be true.

 

1. No migration or separation a species into different, distinctly breeding groups(This is false, therefore evolution must happen)

2. Infinite population of a species(obviously false, therefore evolution must happen)

3. Random mating within a species(also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen)

4. No natural selection, as in, no predators or natural events occuring  that cull out organisms in a species due in any way to genetic factors(like speed, size, etc).  (Also obviously false, therefore evolution must happen).

 

There is one more rule, I believe, but I don't remember what it is.  Still, It should be obvious that 'Evolution Happens', because it has to. 

For those of you who do not understand why the above rules must *all* be true in order for evolution to not occur, allow me to explain:

 

1. If part of a species is separated from the rest of its species such that the two parts do not mate, then evolution will occur.  This is because the part that broke off will no longer have the same gene distribution as the original, full species as a single group(the exception being that they break off group has identical gene frequency and also has infinite population).  As such, breeding will create a change in the genetic makeup of that group of the species.  If this happens long enough, it may become a separate species entirely and no longer be able to breed with the original species(this is called speciation).

 

2. Infinite population.  If a species does not have infinite population, then some genes, even if there is random mating, will become more common by shear chance.  This is the definition of evolution.  That it happens by luck doesn't matter.  Since populations are not infinite, evolution happens, end of story.  That doesn't mean it happens fast(evolution is a slow process in any case).

 

3. Random mating.  If organisms in a species do not mate randomly, then certain gene combinations will occur more frequently than others.  This will cause a genetic shift.  This is evolution.  Since organisms do not randomly mate, evolution happens.

 

4.No Natural Selection.  If predators, or the environment, cause organisms in a species to not breed with equal intensity as other organism in a species, then the genetic makeup of the species will shift as certain unhelpfull genes breed less, and therefore make up less of the gene pool.  This will happen even if there is random mating.  Since natural selection occurs(once again, whether or not it explains everything is irrelevent.  It DOES occur, proveable so.)then (say it with me now!) EVOLUTION HAPPENS.

 

And because I am tired of typing about this, allow me to finish up with a quick link that might help dispell some other silliness.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll have to hit the books on the angular momentum theroy before I relinquish the point.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, my post was attempting to make the point that the big bang and evolution theories are just that, theories. They can't be proven thus require faith to believe in them, thus they too are a religion.

 

Regarding natural selection, I believe micro evolution happens in species, ie/ex. the fact that we have both fresh and salt water fish. We know that with each passing day the sea gets a little saltier as run-off occurs. At a point in time past, the seas had to be fresh water and have gooten saltier with as stated, the run-off. Take the average salt water fish, which has adapted with time and put it in fresh water and it will die and vise versa. This IS NOT evolution, this is adaptation, or I even give you micro evolution.

 

What the evolutionist is teaching my grandchildren in school is that a bit of protoplasium somehow formed out of the dirt and over million of years somehow formed into humans, to keep it short.

 

Can't buy it, I'm sorry. In my example above both the fresh and salt water fish are still a fish. One did not "evolve" into a dog. They are the same species. Show an example of where one species has evolved into another. Find me that missing link.

[pbolduc 0]

Oh, and just to pre-empt any more silliness, allow me to do a quick rundown about the nature of scientific evidence and 'proof'.

 

Modern science does not arise from 'proof', it arises from a lack of disproof.  For instance, you cannot prove gravity exists positively. Sure, you can drop a ball and then say 'AH HAH! SEE!!! it happens!', but this is not proof that the ball will ALWAYS drop, which is what the theory of gravity states(provided you are in a gravity field generated by a mass, yadda yadda).  Instead, ALL science rests on the lack of DISPROOF.  Gravity states that the ball will fall, therefore, as soon as we find a ball that doesn't fall, we either have to toss gravity out the window, or adjust the theory to account for the new information.

 

So, whenever people ask for scientific 'proof' for anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, they are asking for something that can't be given.  Thats just not how science works.  In mathematics, you CAN create proofs of the positive sort, and some parts of science, which are based directly on such mathematics, can gain that advantage as well.  However, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

So, given that science advances through lack of disproof, this means certain things must be true for any scientific theory.  The big important one is 'disproveability'.  In order to be disproveable, a theory must predict what will occur in the future.  It is easy to explain why something happened in the past, we can explain it all sorts of ways, and there is NO way to *prove* that our old explanation was false, no matter what it was.  However, it IS possible to take that same explanation, set up a new situation, and see if they explanation is capable of predicting the new situation in a consistent manner. 

 

For instance, I can say that a genie pushed a ball towards the earth, which is why it fell.  There is no way to show that this is false without going back in time, or figuring out a way that is guaranteed to show invisible genies.

 

So, a theory must predict what will occur in the future under specific circumstances. 

 

But this, too, poses a potential problem.  What if there are two theories that both predict the same thing will happen, and both correctly predict an occurance.  How do you know which one is correct?  Moreover, who does one know that it is JUST those two possibilities, and not a third one we just haven't thought of yet?

 

The answer is, initially, you don't.  The only way to know which one is correct is by having it be the most successful at correctly predicting future events.  The other way is breadth and precision.  For instance, we could say that a ball will always fall, or we could say that a ball will fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.   Both are correct, but the second is more specific.  For breadth, we could say that a ball will fall when released or we could say that any object heavier than air will fall when released.  The second has greater depth, and it is therefore considered the better theory, because it predicts more. 

Note that the more specific or broad a theory, the more ways it can fail.  Because such a theories opens itself up to more ways of disproof, it is considered more impressive when disproofs do not occur, and is therefore considered a better theory.

 

SO, for the purposes of any debate about science, evolution,etc, please keep this information in mind.  Anyone requestion scientific *proof* that such and such happened a long time ago is just blowing smoke and trying to sound impressive.  The best they can ask for is evidence that such an occurence was likely.

 

On a different note, much appologies to the mods/admins for allowing these posts to once again get things off topic, but I tried with my post 2 posts up.  In any case, I hope these last two posts will put an end to pointless off-topic chatter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what your telling me is I can come up with any theory, as false as it my be, and because it can't be disproved, its true! Come on!

 

Your reply only re-enforces the point in my post. If it can't be proved, one has to have faith to believe in it, thus it is a religion, not science.

[cryptwizard 0]

Let pbolduc put forth his/her theory and let all of us make our best endeavours to find fault with his theory, thereby condemning pbolduc to hell, provided that there is no fault found with the theory of hell!With regards to the Big Bang Theory, which at this point no fault has been found on:/me hauls "Basic Psyshics Refernce Manual Volume 1: A-C" off bookshelf and dusts off the cover.... Based on the theory e=mc² discovered in {xxxx} by Albert Einstein, showing a distinct link between energy and matter, come a theory of the creation of the universe.The Big Bang Theory discovered in {xxxx} by {Some Guy} states that there was a "big bang", converting the infinite energy present in the {universe} at that time, slowly into matter and this process is still happening today ...I will show you's more quotes from the imaginary "Basic Psyshics Refernce Manual" series that is present only as a {xxx} representation in my brain.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

So what your telling me is I can come up with any theory, as false as it my be, and because it can't be disproved, its true!  Come on!

 

Your reply only re-enforces the point in my post.  If it can't be proved, one has to have faith to believe in it, thus it is a religion, not science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you can come up with any NONPREDICTIVE theory, and then it is simply not testable. That does not make it true. Simply non-scientific and therefore not worth talking about. The point I am making is that your idea of proof is useless. YOU *CANNOT* proove that something will always happen, now and in the future. You can only demonstrate that it NEVER FAILS TO HAPPEN over and over again. You can also demonstrate that given one thing, another never fails to occur, which is called demonstrating causality. Doing this involves an empirical study, which is what that site you sent a link to demanded.

 

In order to do any empirical study, you would have to take a couple thousand years, put some stuff in a box, and then make sure that everything was perfectly controlled, or you would have to start again. This could be done, but it would be a logistical nightmare.

 

As for one species turning into a different species, this is actually where evolution started. Charles darwin found a number of similar, though distinctly different species on different islands. Some of these species could no longer interbreed. What had occured was speciation, where a species splits into multiple groups. Go read his 'Origin of Species' for more. Granted, science has honed things down with greater specificity than his original work, but you should still find it enlightening.

 

One argument raised against evolution is something along the lines of 'but if things evolved wouldn't they be perfectly fitted to the world they are in, because organisms are imperfect doesn't that show that they were created?' Humorously enough, this is actually evidence FOR evolution. If there were intelligent design(especially by an all-knowing all powerfull being) then such mismatches would not exist. However, evolved creatures are created in part by chance and by heritage, an adaptation that was usefull before is now a hinderance, but is so common in the gene pool it takes a long time to finally leave completely(if ever).

 

As just a random bit of info you might find interesting, while in the womb, human babies for a short time have gills. Actual gills, like those from fish. Go look it up and have some fun reading.

 

As for one thing turning into another, that is less common to find in studies because it takes a long time, and is therefore a logistical problem. However, there was one bit of research done involving simulating the early environment and chemical makeup of the earth. In that study, arising from nothing but the chemical soup, bits of (I believe it was, but its been a while) RNA formed, which is the beginnings of what is necessary for life. DNA, btw, is simply two pieces of RNA put together. DNA splits and is reformed thousands of time in your body while you are reading this. DNA is in some ways more usefull, but it is just a big version of RNA in most respects. Strands of RNA are enough to create life on the level of a simple virus.

 

In any case, the proof you want for evolution doesn't exist, but that does not mean it rests on faith, as you assert. To make an analogy, we do trials until evidence is found 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The thing is, we cannot ever prove that any person ever did a crime positively, but instead we simply must show a preponderance of evidence that they did it and no one else, while at the same time showing that there is no evidence saying that they did not commit the crime.

 

This is precisely how scientific proof works. By preponderance of the evidence and with a lack of countervailing evidence.

 

This is why coming up with any theory you like doesn't make it true. In fact, you should discard the idea of true, you should instead use 'most likely possibility given the data'. The concept of true you would like to use SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST, in any way shape or form, in basically every aspect of your life. The only things that have positive truths are mathematical assertions. Neither evolution nor creatonism are mathematical assertions, therefore thinking they are true must be based on the preponderance of the evidence.

 

There is lots of evidence that evolution, or some process like it, occured. There is none for creationism/intelligent design, despite what that doctor of 'cryptozoology'(wtf is cryptozoology anyway? and where did he get his degree?) would have you believe.

 

So, evolution is not true by proof, but instead by preponderance of evidence. The theory of evolution is taught in schools because it so far best fits the given evidence, and the things that it predicts, that we have had the ability to test, have so far tested correctly.

 

Creationism is not taught in schools for a number of reasons. 1. In terms of biblical creationism, it simply does not fit known facts and data, and is therefore discarded. 2. In terms of the Intelligent Design movement, which doesn't make assertions like 'the world is 5000 years old or somesuch', it is not taught because it ALSO does not fit known data, as well as not being a very good scientific theory. The data it does not fit is such things as above, with the non-perfect fitness of species, the availability of genetic diseases and such. Also, creationism/Intelligent Design is not predictive. It does not tell us what will occur in the future. Therefore, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. If it is not a scientific theory, then it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Come back when you have a testable theory, and then maybe people will talk, and if it is tested and peer-reviewed, then people will actually listen to you.

[flasher 0]

Well if you believe in god ans stuff you have to ask the question who made god or where did come from

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thinh personnally:

I don't believe in God, selg, I believe in the believing behind it

We have made God in our minds, thousands years ago.

The Big-Beng is the theorie that is the most acceptable.

 

Pieter

[pbolduc 0]

As just a random bit of info you might find interesting, while in the womb, human babies for a short time have gills.  Actual gills, like those from fish.  Go look it up and have some fun reading.

Have you ever given thought to the fact that the child is in liquid and an Intelligent Designer designed it that wat for a purpose.

 

 

As for one thing turning into another, that is less common to find in studies because it takes a long time, and is therefore a logistical problem.  However, there was one bit of research done involving simulating the early environment and chemical makeup of the earth.  In that study, arising from nothing but the chemical soup, bits of (I believe it was, but its been a while) RNA formed, which is the beginnings of what is necessary for life.  DNA, btw, is simply two pieces of RNA put together.  DNA splits and is reformed thousands of time in your body while you are reading this.  DNA is in some ways more usefull, but it is just a big version of RNA in most respects.  Strands of RNA are enough to create life on the level of a simple virus.

How do you know it takes a long time and where are the missing links between species. Lucy, link all others for example, was proven to be an ape years ago.

 

In any case, the proof you want for evolution doesn't exist, but that does not mean it rests on faith, as you assert.  To make an analogy, we do trials until evidence is found 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  The thing is, we cannot ever prove that any person ever did a crime positively, but instead we simply must show a preponderance of evidence that they did it and no one else, while at the same time showing

that there is no evidence saying that they did not commit the crime.

 

It never ceases to amaze me the effort put forth to deny that there could be an Intelligent Designer, God. A Supreme Being who is in charge, probably because along with the Creator might come some rules He wants use to live by. Us humans want to "do what we will", it the whole of the law according to Alester Crawley, one of the world's predominent satan worshipers.

 

This is precisely how scientific proof works.  By preponderance of the evidence and with a lack of countervailing evidence.

This is why coming up with any theory you like doesn't make it true.  In fact, you should discard the idea of true, you should instead use 'most likely possibility given the data'.  The concept of true you would like to use SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST, in any way shape or form, in basically every aspect of your life.  The only things that have positive truths are mathematical assertions.  Neither evolution nor creatonism are mathematical assertions, therefore thinking they are true must be based on the preponderance of the evidence. 

We are saved through faith, not the perponderance of evidence.

 

There is lots of evidence that evolution, or some process like it, occured.  There is none for creationism/intelligent design, despite what that doctor of 'cryptozoology'(wtf is cryptozoology anyway? and where did he get his degree?) would have you believe.

 

So, evolution is not true by proof, but instead by preponderance of evidence.  The theory of evolution is taught in schools because it so far best fits the given evidence, and the things that it predicts, that we have had the ability to test, have so far tested correctly.

Why is it that scientist do not take into consideration a catistrophic event link a world wide flood, which would account for alot of what is thought to have occured over so called millions and millions of years. St. Helens carved a huge canyon in a matter of hours when she blew. Layers and Layers of sedimentary rock form in a heartbeat in time.

 

I recommended to visit Hovind's site because it does raise the possibilty that perhaps there is another perspective that is not being taught, or even put forth to the general public by our state run school system. I thought the idea in search of the truth, which is what science is really all about, was to evaluate all of the evidence.

 

Creationism is not taught in schools for a number of reasons.  1. In terms of biblical creationism, it simply does not fit known facts and data, and is therefore discarded.

 

Creationism is not taught in school because they would have to admit there is a Creator they might have to answer to.

 

2. In terms of the Intelligent Design movement, which doesn't make assertions like 'the world is 5000 years old or somesuch', it is not taught because it ALSO does not fit known data, as well as not being a very good scientific theory.  The data it does not fit is such things as above, with the non-perfect fitness of species, the availability of genetic diseases and such.

 

Again, Why is it that scientist do not take into consideration a catistrophic event link a world wide flood, which would account for alot of what is thought to have occured over so called millions and millions of years. St. Helens carved a huge canyon in a matter of hours when she blew. Layers and Layers of sedimentary rock form in a heartbeat in time.

 

 

Also, creationism/Intelligent Design is not predictive.  It does not tell us what will occur in the future.  Therefore, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.  If it is not a scientific theory, then it doesn't belong in a science classroom.  Come back when you have a testable theory, and then maybe people will talk, and if it is tested and peer-reviewed, then people will actually listen to you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ironic that a created being would try to predict the future actions of the Creator, however, He has seen fit to provide us with some insight through His Word. I too agree that the theory of Creationism should not be taught in a science class, it is a theory that must be believed by faith. That has been my whole point all along.

 

In any case, the proof you want for evolution doesn't exist, but that does not mean it rests on faith, as you assert.

Your own words prove my point. If the hard proof doesn't exist, than it has to believed upon by FAITH, thus it is a religion, and should not be taught in our public schools as fact.

 

Chances are you most likely do not care for me because I hold views different from yours, That's ok with me, I hold nothing against you, however, it is apparent to me that either one of us will be changing our perspective soon. For me to change there would have to be hard factual evidence brought forth, and for you to change your perspective God would have to touch your heart.

 

No need to persue this conversation anymore.

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Sigh, It is clear that at some level, you just don't get it. So, I will try, one last time, to help you understand something basic, so that you can understand the rest of what I have typed, as you clearly don't.So, first, a question.Is it an act of faith to believe/expect for a ball to fall to the ground from your hand?Think about it, to you, is this an act of faith?I don't think so. At the same time, you cannot prove that it will fall. You can only show that as many times as you let go, it never fails to do so. Try as you might, you will never be able to prove that the ball will never ever just stay floating in the air.My question to you is, DO YOU GET THAT? Do you understand the nature of proof and scientific evidence, or more to the point, do you understand that proof, as you think of it, not only does not exist BUT CANNOT. Asking for it is therefore rather irrational. The only thing you can ask for is evidence showing something is wrong. So, In science, nothing, absolutely nothing, is ever true in the way you would *like* to think about things. Ideas, theories, hypotheses are simply repeatedly shown to be 'not false'. Please try to understand this. The reason why you seem to have a hard time interpreting and understanding my posts is this simple idea of 'not false' as opposed to 'true'. Finally, as for your comment about the gills, the child grows them but does not use them for oxygen exchange, they get all they need through the umbilical chord. I am sorry you have such a hard time understanding the concepts behind science. But please try before you condemn them.Also, you say that in order for my opinion to change, I would have to have my heart touched by God. Which one? Which God? Why, other than your upbringing, do you think your god is more likely the correct one than any other God someone might talk about?

[Herbert1405241469 0]

(wtf is cryptozoology anyway? and where did he get his degree?) would have you believe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A friend of mine once said after our highschool graduation he'd go for that. From the way he talked, it's the study of mythical animals like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. I also think he was bullsh**ing me

 

Wow this discussion sure turned from when I last posted (My theory that the world was the Universe's Internet site or whatever, hehe) Keep up the discussion. It's not a flamefest so I feel like I'm actually learning from all this. Keep it up

[MajesticTreeFrog 0]

Indeed, I looked it up. Cryptozoology is the study of animals that don't exist. That guy and the website he is on just lost all possible 'legitimate' points.

[Strykerclan Leader 0]

Even as a Scout, I do not believe in religions and I believe that when death claims one, you just black out and never wake up so I don't think God created the universe since there is none.No offense!But if there is a Big Bang theory, generally, there'll be a Big Crunch theory.The universe keeps on expanding until it can support it no further and there goes the crunch, followed by the Bang again and all over again.

[spiritshinobi 0]

Also, you say that in order for my opinion to change, I would have to have my heart touched by God.  Which one?  Which God?  Why, other than your upbringing, do you think your god is more likely the correct one than any other God someone might talk about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look he is talking about the ONE TRUE GOD, the God that CREATED the universe, unlike some false theorey that says it was created by an explosion resulting from an extremely small volume. The universe wasn't created by CHANCE, it was PLANNED from the begining. God is the one TRUE God because it says so in the Bible. And the Bible IS correct. We believe that it is true because there is no proof of anything that recorded Creation (besides the Bible). The Bible is true, even though some do not want to believe it.

 

Even as a Scout, I do not believe in religions and I believe that when death claims one, you just black out and never wake up so I don't think God created the universe since there is none.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do not be like that, like so many others, that want to be in control of themself, and dont want anyone else in charge of them. When you die, your soul is judged on what you have done for Jesus. nothing material in this world will matter at all. But everything you do for Him will. If you accept Christ as your Savior and want to follow Him you will go to Heaven, but if you dont you will go to Hell. Heaven is eternal life, Hell is eternal suffering. There is no Purgitory. Heaven or Hell...its your life...your choice...but the Bible says All who call on the name of the Lord WILL be saved. For the wages of sin is death, but the Gift o God is eternal life through Christ.