Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 433,142 views
Just because you cannot measure or see God does not mean he doesnt exist PS. We believe the evidence of his existance lies in his creation and the relationship we have with him. That is our evidence. It is very real. It isnt all just 'theres no way that happened on its own' as some say it is. Right hand/left hand amino acids, the way everything rotates around a central point in the universe, from an atom to planets to galaxies etc point to intentional design, not randomness.


I'm not making up multiple universe theories, alot believe in this. Famine seems to have given this theory at least a thought. I posted something about the universe expansion somewhere else and got this response:

read in Illustrated Science (Illustrerad Vetenskap) that it has something to do with a parallel universe (as I understood it)..

We live in a "bran" and our "bran" has a sister bran connected via a "vacuum spring" .. Right now we are going away from the sister "bran", but the vacuum spring will eventually stop the expanding and we will collide with our sister bran (after the universe has died that is..) and our universe will be reborn.

But my point was not that the universe is just expanding, but it is defying gravity in that it is speeding up its expansion.

As for the universe stopping and staying the same size, I read up on this sometime ago. If I remeber correctly Einstein worked with this. If the Universe expanded too fast or too slow it would either collapse on itself or spread out so thin into almost nothing. But Einstein was looking to see if it could expand to a certain point than stop. I dont remember much more -0-0-=009--808
 
It's "brane". As in "mem".

Still, there we have it. Potted M-Theory for imbeciles.

My universe model is, frankly, rubbish. It is, on the other hand, close enough to the truth that the layperson (i.e. Me) can understand it. You need to add another 8 dimensions, amongst other things, but at that point most of us normal people feel like our head has turned inside-out and have to go for a lie down. Or possibly a lie sideways.

The quoted version of "M-Theory" contains no part which is close to truth. Any truth. There are NOT, for a start, just 2 branes.


Earth - the universe is NOT speeding up its expansion. And would you PLEASE address the previous point I put to you?
 
I'm about to go but after quickly glancing over Famine's post I have these comments

I'm not going to read the entire topic

Also, you say the universe is 18 billion years old

What will the say next?!

I just got a book about the universe that says it is only 13.4 billion years old. Then they went on to cliam the hubble telescope couldnt see further than 13.4 billion years because they had reached the edge of universe and beyond was plasma. They even said the universe was flat, but your source claims it to be a sphere

Yet another example of people playing mind games. What is the truth!?!? Is it 18 or 13 billion years old? Flat or nonflat??

They dont know, yet they continue to throw stuff out there as it were fact. Mans wisdom is constantly changing

I even remember watching a documentary about the universe on the discovery science channel that said they had found stars 20 billion years old, and then they said "HERE we are advocating the universe's age to be 13 billion years old when we have found stars (measured them with much more accurate ways) to be 20billion years old"

And he laughed
 
Earth
I'm about to go but after quickly glancing over Famine's post I have these comments

I'm not going to read the entire topic
Click to expand...

Then don't expect responses when you bring up things already covered. You can't be bothered checking? I can't be bothered answering.

Earth
Also, you say the universe is 18 billion years old

What will the say next?!

I just got a book about the universe that says it is only 13.4 billion years old. Then they went on to cliam the hubble telescope couldnt see further than 13.4 billion years because they had reached the edge of universe and beyond was plasma. They even said the universe was flat, but your source claims it to be a sphere

Yet another example of people playing mind games. What is the truth!?!? Is it 18 or 13 billion years old? Flat or nonflat??

They dont know, yet they continue to throw stuff out there as it were fact. Mans wisdom is constantly changing

I even remember watching a documentary about the universe on the discovery science channel that said they had found stars 20 billion years old, and then they said "HERE we are advocating the universe's age to be 13 billion years old when we have found stars (measured them with much more accurate ways) to be 20billion years old"

And he laughed
Click to expand...

Never mind not reading the whole thread. You're not even bothering to read posts.

Famine
From the moment of the Big Bang (between 15 and 20 billion years ago - current projections have it at 18.5 billion years)
Click to expand...

Plasma, eh? How could they know that there was plasma there if they couldn't detect it? If it's not IN the universe, how CAN you detect it.

You're confusing "Observable Universe" (what we can see) with "Universe". We are at the centre of one, obviously and, through pure universal topography, at the centre/edge/somewhere else of the other.
 
hmmm... I'm not really confused, but all I'm saying is how do we really know that their is an infinite expansion of this finite universe. Since the expansion can be consider a sphere where the speed of light limits the expansion rate, how do we know that there isn't a barrier outside our universe that could halt the whole of the expansion?

Do we really know that the expansion is a certainty, or is this the best theory that we have so far?

note: I know that I'm probably dragging this discussion away from the main topic, but I just want to know.
 
Redshift (also known as Doppler Shift).

The further away objects are, the faster they are moving away from us - their light is redshifted, that is, moved further towards the red end of the spectrum. The further away, the further the redshift - into infrared and beyond.


Asking what the universe is expanding into is as sane a question as asking what yellow tastes of, or what sound dark makes.
 
You know what I hate. When people say stuff like...

"Me thinks you can see God's effect on the universe now IMO IMO people IMO
"

OH WE CANT EXPLAIN IT, IT MUST BE GOD!!!11!

Foolish. I'm glad that thinking like this is ignored in modern science.

You go on about mans inaccuracies in science, but then use it to back up YOUR claim and now science is okay? I find that rather funny, science is okay as long as it backs you up.

Famine I doubt many read your science/genius post
Click to expand...

I read it. Didn't understand alot of it, but it was interesting never-the-less.
 
Wowser! An article from CNN 4 years ago saying that the weakest force known in the universe (so weak in fact that it's not native to our universe) "slowed down the Big Bang". Well, that's ME told... :rolleyes:

What you think that article means: The universe's expansion is speeding up.
What the article actually means: The speed at which the universe is expanding isn't as slow as we once thought it was.
Underlying cause: Gravity didn't slow down the Big Bang at all.
Accompanying theory: M-theory.


Science changes with new evidence. Dogma does not. 4 years may be a short time cosmologically, but it's a long time in cosmology.
 
code_kev
"

OH WE CANT EXPLAIN IT, IT MUST BE GOD!!!11!
Click to expand...

Looks like my IMO couldnt fend off posts like that

How sure are you that you have pinkies because of evolution?

OH WE CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN FOR SURVIVAL!!!11!

Famine, I'm quite sure that article and many others speak of the universe not staying at a steady speed but being at variable speeds
 
Earth, one word. "Evidence". Learn it well, for it is a thing that true science uses. Earth, you do realise that you are, for lack of a better word, being "pwned"?

How can you be sure anything has to do with God? You can't. No matter what you say, your beliefs are faith based, mine are evidence based. At least the theorys I and the sane world subscribe to make sense, and use tangible evidence. Isn't it strange how most Creationists are only willing to listen to science that AGREES with them? Odd that... :dunce:

Adding "IMO" doesn't protect you what so ever.
 
Science changes with new evidence. Dogma does not. 4 years may be a short time cosmologically, but it's a long time in cosmology.
Click to expand...

True. That's what many creationists seem to have trouble with. When scientists contradict each other(what is a general occurance in science) all of the scientific theories conserning a subject must, according to them, be wrong.
 
code_kev
Earth, one word. "Evidence". Learn it well, for it is a thing that true science uses. Earth, you do realise that you are, for lack of a better word, being "pwned"?

How can you be sure anything has to do with God? You can't. No matter what you say, your beliefs are faith based, mine are evidence based. At least the theorys I and the sane world subscribe to make sense, and use tangible evidence.
Click to expand...

Owned? I dont really care. Famine looks to have much more education than me. So what? He hasnt and wont prove there isnt a God

Pjot, Im not saying that all conflicting theories mean science is wrong. I'm only saying, as i havebeen for some time, that I HATE it when they send work out as fact when they arent sure of it themselves. They need to have more probablys or it looks like or 'in theory' in their work.
 
code_kev
Isn't it strange how most Creationists are only willing to listen to science that AGREES with them? Odd that... :dunce:
Click to expand...

you just admitted dark energy could have something to do with God
 
Famine
Redshift (also known as Doppler Shift).

The further away objects are, the faster they are moving away from us - their light is redshifted, that is, moved further towards the red end of the spectrum. The further away, the further the redshift - into infrared and beyond.


Asking what the universe is expanding into is as sane a question as asking what yellow tastes of, or what sound dark makes.
Click to expand...

ha!... how is asking what the universe is expanding to insane? It's the same thing as asking what's the fate of man kind is... actually the only reason that some people are seeing if the universe is "speeding up" or "slowing" in its expansion is to see if there is anything abnormal that might cause us to cease in existence. Many theories have arisen from this including one (and I know it's old) but that states that we might go into a reversal and then finally implode. All I'm saying is many people are coming up with theories that are fallacious because they see something and they imagine wild ideas and scenarios (i.e. alchemy, abiogenesis, ect.) and I’m just questioning the integrity of the current theories that we have today. Modern science has advanced, but does the big bang theory still have a science based origin or is this just some wild idea that is supported by countless scientific proof? (and yes, I know I’ve changed the subject once again… :guilty: )
 
Earth, I don't know much. I admit that, I'm willing to learn, my opinions and ideas are flexible. This is what seperates me from fundamentalists. My mind IS NEVER made up. Well unless it's something like the shape of the Earth etc, I'm quite decided on that...but you know what I mean. Why do I doubt Creationism then you ask, I'll tell you why, it doesn't have a leg to stand on. No evidence, nothing, hell it doesn't even make sense.

you just admitted dark energy could have something to do with God
Click to expand...

I admitted nothing, what I said was meant in general, I don't know enough about dark matter to really have an opinion on it. If a God exists (which I dont believe), then everything would have something to do with it anyway.
 
Earth
Just because you cannot measure or see God does not mean he doesnt exist PS. We believe the evidence of his existance lies in his creation and the relationship we have with him. That is our evidence. It is very real. It isnt all just 'theres no way that happened on its own' as some say it is. Right hand/left hand amino acids, the way everything rotates around a central point in the universe, from an atom to planets to galaxies etc point to intentional design, not randomness.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't believe in his existence at all, so before you tell me what I do and do not believe, perhaps you should at least get some research first.
 
VenomFX220
ha!... how is asking what the universe is expanding to insane? It's the same thing as asking what's the fate of man kind is...
Click to expand...

Not really. Mankind is finite, and has a beginning and an end.

What's "outside" the universe is an inherently ridiculous concept. Exterior and interior implies dimension, which implies space. The universe contains all of space (and, by extension, time), so you can't even say there's "nothing" outside it, simply because there IS no "outside" it.

Remember the globe model I posted earlier? Well, a traveller on Earth would have to reach 17,500mph in order to acheive "escape velocity" - that is fast enough to exceed the forces (in this case, gravity) keeping it attached to the surface. Only then could they roam outside the globe. The escape velocity of the globe model is posted earlier is an infinitessimal amount above c, the speed of light in a vacuum. Acheive c and you will, by quirks of the physics regarding light and space-time, occupy all points in the universe, in both space AND time, simultaneously. Achieve that infinitessimal amount above c and you will acheive universal escape velocity and leave the universe.

Where will you go?

*shrugs* You got me. Perhaps you'd cross dimensions, or visit another universe. What you wouldn't do is leave the universe and go outside it - there isn't an outside. All the other dimensions and universes occupy the same "M-space" as this one.


It's not an easy concept to grasp - the universe is expanding, but not "into" anything, because there isn't an "outside" for it to go "into". Like the concept that before The Big Bang there wasn't. Not that there wasn't anything, but that there wasn't. The Big Bang, as the origin of the universe was the origin of space-time. Without time there isn't a "before" (without space there isn't an "outside"), so "before" The Big Bang is an illogical concept - though in M-Space there was a "before" The Big Bang. M-Theory is baffling - if you thought my globe model was wierd, M-Theory makes Wierdy McWierd, the Wierdest man in Wierdtown look like an office clerk. M-Theory is the Michael Jackson of science, only without the theme park and predilection for small boys.


Next up, what dark sounds like, and what yellow tastes of (this actually has an answer, oddly).



Earth - Science isn't "put out as fact". It is written up and reviewed. Problem is, when it gets published FOR review, the mainstream media get hold of it and publish it with "Look what those scientists are up to now!" headlines.

A while ago, the news associations published news that the Universe was green!. "The universe is green, say astronomers!". A group of astronomers had gathered light data from many millions of stars, plumbed the numbers, got an average colour of "green" and published the paper for review. "Media" got hold of it and published.

What they DIDN'T publish was that, upon review, it was found that there was an error in the calculations - reviewing scientists had thought, "Hey, cool. I wonder if their numbers fit?", tried it out and discovered a mistake. The team went back to the raw data, discovered that there was indeed a mistake, recalculated and republished with the news that the universe was, in fact, beige. Upon review the new data was found to be mistake free. So, congratulations. You live in a beige universe.

The issue here seems to be that you perceive newspapers reporting science to be science. What really happens is the science reviews science and THEN reports it as science. If something appears in a scientific journal, it's not fact. It's conclusions from an experiment. If the experiment can be repeated, remotely, using the same equipment and materials as the original source (all of which is included in ANY paper) and achieve the same, or statistically insignificantly dissimilar, results, then this too is reported, as corroborative - if not then it's reported as contrary. It takes a lot for something to be considered as even "theory" - yet the newspapers just publish what they fancy if it sounds cool, before anyone's even had a chance to do the usual checking.


Don't rely on the popular press for your science.
 
Earth
I'm not going to read the entire topic
Click to expand...
That's clear - you don't seem to read all of anything you ever read. But then you blame the deficiencies on the subject, not the reader.
:rolleyes:
What will the say next?!

Yet another example of people playing mind games. What is the truth!?!? Is it 18 or 13 billion years old? Flat or nonflat??

They dont know, yet they continue to throw stuff out there as it were fact. Mans wisdom is constantly changing
Click to expand...
No, they continue to throw it out there as theory. You keep insisting on receiving it as fact, so that you can then tell yourself that science is wrong and you are right. Again, don't blame the subject for the reader's preconceived ideas.
Earth
Once again we see the mysterious dark energy. Me thinks you can see God's effect on the universe now IMO IMO people

Famine I doubt many read your science/genius post
Click to expand...
No, methinks you can see God's effect, because that's all you want to see. And, for the record, I read Famine's post. Perhaps, if you could be bothered, you might actually learn something. But of course that would challenge your preconceived ideas, so you'll never actually do it.
Earth
Owned? I dont really care. Famine looks to have much more education than me. So what? He hasnt and wont prove there isnt a God
Click to expand...
You logically cannot prove there isn't a God. You also cannot prove that there isn't a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The burden of proof is not on the negative because it logically cannot be. The burden of proof is on the positive because that's the only logically possible thing.

So prove to us there is a God. Our theories fit the available evidence. All your myth fits is the dogma. That's why we don't buy it.
I'm only saying, as i havebeen for some time, that I HATE it when they send work out as fact when they arent sure of it themselves. They need to have more probablys or it looks like or 'in theory' in their work.
Click to expand...
And you're still blaming the subject for shortcomings of the reader. NO SCIENTIST CLAIMS ANYTHING IS "FACT". Science is always - always - based in skepticism. But it suits your purposes to project your own dogmatic tendencies onto the rest of the world. You believe dogma and so you assume that everyone believes dogma.

Not everyone believes dogma.
 
Earth
...I HATE it when they send work out as fact when they arent sure of it themselves. They need to have more probablys or it looks like or 'in theory' in their work...
Click to expand...

As Duke said, you seem determined to feel that scientists are absolutely certain of everything. Of course they're not, but you seem to have a problem with accepting that. You seem to need to feel that scientists are convinced they're always right.

Is that because religious people are always absolutely certain of their beliefs, and it bothers you that real scientists, who labor to gather as much hard data as they can, often in horrendous field conditions or tedious laboratory environments, always stress that they don't know it all?

Does it seem odd that religious people, whose "studies" usually seem to amount to nothing more than reading things written by other religious people, are so certain, when scientists, who employ every technical method available to them to get to the truth, always say that they don't have all the answers?

Does that contradiction cause you to insist that scientists insist they're stating fact, when of course they say nothing of the sort?
 
Zardoz
As Duke said, you seem determined to feel that scientists are absolutely certain of everything. Of course they're not, but you seem to have a problem with accepting that. You seem to need to feel that scientists are convinced they're always right.

Is that because religious people are always absolutely certain of their beliefs, and it bothers you that real scientists, who labor to gather as much hard data as they can, often in horrendous field conditions or tedious laboratory environments, always stress that they don't know it all?

Does it seem odd that religious people, whose "studies" usually seem to amount to nothing more than reading things written by other religious people, are so certain, when scientists, who employ every technical method available to them to get to the truth, always say that they don't have all the answers?

Does that contradiction cause you to insist that scientists insist they're stating fact, when of course they say nothing of the sort?
Click to expand...

Most likely true, but what do I know? :sly:
 
Earth:

There is evidence to support Evolution. There is no evidence to support Creation/Intelligent Design. Evolution is not perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far. If you can't suggest a better theory, please stop posting in this thread.

Your level of faith blows my mind.
 
I belive in religion(Christianity) and intelligent design. Are there scientific proofs supporting them? not really. Does that mean they are wrong? who knows?. If you look at it from strictly scientific standpoint, God(s), Creationism, I.D. are all fiction. As some notable members have said in this thread, (at least)God and I.D. can not be proven or disproven.

This is a great thread. Very educational and I've learned so much from everybody(especially from the you know who ;) ). However, there's one problem I see. From the "Evolution" camp, if it can't be proven by some sort of test, it is not true. From the "Creation/Intelligent Design" camp, I think it's more like "signs" than proofs? There are "signs" that shows us that there is a power at work, and the universe and everything in it were created(& designed) for a reason(s).

Personally, I question both possibilities constantly and I am not just saying that. I've loved science since I was very young, but unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to be a very good student of it(I might be a bit jealous of Famine). However our science is a process, studies and does not provide all the answers. All we can do is to continue on learning.

Look on the bright side, we'll all know the answer for sure, when the time comes! :lol:
 
tabs
Earth:

There is evidence to support Evolution. There is no evidence to support Creation/Intelligent Design. Evolution is not perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far. If you can't suggest a better theory, please stop posting in this thread.

Your level of faith blows my mind.
Click to expand...


knucklehead ...oops...I mean taps ...are you aware of the title of this thread ?
 

Similar threads

Chris30
My Mom Has Cancer! (Need Advice)!
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
W3H5
W3H5
Vince_Fiero
Creation of wealth, the ideal distribution
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Vince_Fiero
Vince_Fiero
HyperState
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution question
Replies
5
Views
3K
Magog
Magog
SYLVERIS
  • Locked
OFFLINE PLAYERS VS ONLINE RACERS, OFFLINE PLAYERS WON !
Replies
1
Views
1K
daan
daan
GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
Replies
29
Views
1K
AEKara38
AEKara38

Latest Posts

Back