I saw The Passion of Christ today.

errm.. the big bang theory says that the universe was packed together very very tightly so it was extremely dense. and it is possible to destroy matter in a sence. when matter mixes with antimatter, they both cancel eachother out and what is left is radiation...aka, not matter. now, the universe back then was sooo dense that there was no "matter" as we know it today, just pure energy. as the universe expanded (exploded) it cooled, and got less dense and then matter was able to form eventually. its a very complicated subject! but we know that the universe was not always at its present state, and some catastrophy happened about 15 billion years ago. weather that was the creation of the universe from a big bang, a god, or just some sort of very big event we may never know...

Good old E=mc2 says that energy and matter are essentially the same thing in different states. All the matter and energy in the universe was supposedly condensed into a single point before the Big Bang. Such conditions would probably be so extreme that we could never figure out what it was like from our limited viewpoint. For example, extreme gravity bends time as well as space, so all the matter in the universe in one spot would have caused time as we know it to virtually stop...so how long was it like that? And what came before? Was there a before? Weird stuff...that's why I didn't go into astrophysics haha.

[Oscar]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

All three.

A man walks up to you in the street and says ' Everything I say to you is a lie' Is he telling the truth or lying (man i love that one)

Some some reason i had to urge to ask my buisness studies teacher (also teachers RS etc) about evolution, and basicly said what Rctycoon112 said. She said she beleives in evolution to a degree etc etc. After that my attension went elsewhere and all i remember after that was apes in trillbees....

actually, steven hawking said that the universe was shrinking before the big bang, but it didnt come together at a single unified point so all the matter just brushed against all the other matter and gravity swung it back out. kind of like when you have two magnets, you leave them on a tabke and they attract eachother but just miss and fly out faster than they went in. so before the big bang, there might have been the universe number version 1. however, im not sure i belive this b/c of the fact that the space between matter is getting bigger. astrophysics are soo cool!

as for "what came forst, the chicken or the egg" the answer is "the mother chicken"

Dinosaurs laid eggs way before chickens were around[|)]

Yeah, dinosaurs may have laid eggs before chickens were around, but i think the whol chicken laying thing is just trying to make a point that we can not know everything. Scientists may come out and sayy, the chicken had to come first to lay the egg then icubate it, but another scientist can say that egg was created one day and then hatched, like the Adam and Eve story, so i just think its tryign to make a point. But this is just my opinion. We just came out of dust, and out of adams rib came eve, it jsut like saying that the egg came from dust, and from the egg came the chicken.

Personally though, I don't know what came first, but sciences theory of how the first life came to earth actually makes sense. But it still doesn't quite explain how the universe got here or how the gasses and chemicals that were in space, were in space to create the big bang. But many people say that the truth will be revealed when you die. Also, how would you explain where space came from, or where God came from, science just isn't that developed yet. Religion makes it easier to belive this stuff because you want to believe what your religion says. I mean, out of the hundreds of religions of the earth, whats to beleive?

This is my big ol long opinion [dunno]

[Oscar]

as for "what came forst, the chicken or the egg" the answer is "the mother chicken"

where did the mother chicken come from?

[coolbeans326]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as for "what came forst, the chicken or the egg" the answer is "the mother chicken"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

where did the mother chicken come from?
-WeeWeeSlap

Where would the egg come from??? The answers to all these mind boggling questions is who gives a love???
Also why do you people write the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again???

RCTandy, the peppered moth "evolution" is not evolution at all. Scientists say that the witness of this physical change proves that evolution is true. But actually, what they witnessed was natural selection where they changed their physical state to adapt to their surrounding environment. The moths remained the EXACT same species and nothing changed except for the ability for them to adapt to their surroundings.

I would also like to point out for the doubts of The flood earlier in this thread that it did exist, and there is supporting evidence. The earth, if it were flat, would be completely covered in an 8,000ft. deep ocean. The Bible states that this flood covered the entire earth, but how can it since mt. Everest is slightly over 29,000ft. tall?
The answer is that the flood CREATED the mountain ranges. The evidence of this consists of that every single large mountain range in the world consists of sediments and layers identical to that of the bottom of the ocean. The summit of Mt. Everest even has clamshells on it! Mount Everest is constantly increasing in height a few inches every year, which is because the plate boundaries are pushing together, and they have been being pushed together since the flood occured which was why it started. This is what caused mountain ranges to form.

[coolbeans326]

amen, brother

[Oscar]

plate techtonics is a topic to be covered to explain the mountain ranges thing.

Where would the egg come from??? The answers to all these mind boggling questions is who gives a love???
Also why do you people write the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again???

Why do people continue to disagree on the start of life? On the start of the universe? On the start of anything? See what I mean? That is why these "mind boggling" questions continue to arise over and over again.

Originally posted by IntaminFan397

RCTandy, the peppered moth "evolution" is not evolution at all. Scientists say that the witness of this physical change proves that evolution is true. But actually, what they witnessed was natural selection where they changed their physical state to adapt to their surrounding environment. The moths remained the EXACT same species and nothing changed except for the ability for them to adapt to their surroundings.

I would also like to point out for the doubts of The flood earlier in this thread that it did exist, and there is supporting evidence. The earth, if it were flat, would be completely covered in an 8,000ft. deep ocean. The Bible states that this flood covered the entire earth, but how can it since mt. Everest is slightly over 29,000ft. tall?
The answer is that the flood CREATED the mountain ranges. The evidence of this consists of that every single large mountain range in the world consists of sediments and layers identical to that of the bottom of the ocean. The summit of Mt. Everest even has clamshells on it! Mount Everest is constantly increasing in height a few inches every year, which is because the plate boundaries are pushing together, and they have been being pushed together since the flood occured which was why it started. This is what caused mountain ranges to form.

Ummm...so the flood created the mountains, but plate tectonics keeps them going? You can't just insert science into your arguments when you feel like it. Ocean sediments are in mountains because they are places where ocean crusts were upthrust by the same tectonic forces that we see continuing today. How the hell is a flood supposed to make mountain ranges by the way? Do you actually know anything about sediment transport and deposition? An addition, the fossils found in those sediments are salt water creatures. If all that water came down as rain, it would have diluted the oceans to the point that all salt-water creatures would have immediately died out before your mountains could form.
And guess what the first topic of a biology chapter on evolution is called? Natural selection. That is the primary mechanism of evolution, and it's core belief. If an animal changes it's physical state in response to its surroundings, then it is evolving. It does not have the same genetic code, and it is not the same species. Obviously, you believe in all the mechanisms of evolution. You simply believe that any concept named "evolution" is false because you have been told to believe that. It is funny that you mention believing in the flood and not in evolution in the same post, because those two beliefs contradict each other. There is no way the million plus species that we observe today all fit on the ark, and were taken care of by 8 people. Creationist scientists then claim that, "Oh, okay, well evolution does exist. There were only 16,000 species in Noah's Ark, and then all the existing species evolved from them in a couple thousand years." What a total load of crap. You can't denounce science and then insert it into your arguments when it is convenient. What did the predators eat on the ark? What did they eat when they got off? How do 8 people deal with 12 metric tons of animal waste a day? (a figure calculated by a christian scientist. of course, he has all the answers, but you have to buy his book to see what they are...)
Sorry for sounding harsh, but these arguments simply don't hold up at all. It is frustrating to me that people cling to such beliefs even when they have such obvious fatal flaws. It is a story. An allegory. Meant to teach you a lesson. That's all. By all means believe in the message, but it is not meant to be a historical account. You could learn something from the Christians who have posted here who have managed to integrate their faith into the real world.

"amen, brother"

I don't think intaminfan has anything against science....it only proves what he is trying to say.

First off, I don't know one CREATIONIST that believes in EVOLUTION. That in itself is a rpetty stupid thing to say man, no offense. There aren't any more species today then there were back on the ark, which by the way was quite big, I have no measurements, but it was big, I will tell you that. If anything there are less species today. But we have to take into account that a species today only means there is one tiny thing different. According to science, people of different races are different species. Umm no. They are different colors, but act, think, talk, learn, all almost identically. Thats just an example. The human is that, a human, not 100 different kinds of people. The term species has been taken way out of proportion.

And still, you have yet to give me one half logical reason to believe evolution, all you are saying is twisting the truth around to fit your agenda. I can if you want get scieitific proof to discredit everything you have said on this thread, but I don't have all day. I will adress one thing though, just to prove my point.

Dating of follils to be millions of years apart doesn't hold up to me. How is something millions of years older then something else that is in teh EXACT same layer of sediment? And evolutionists will (if they know enough) concede, that there was a catostrophic flood(noah's flood), and a flood of that size receding across the land would and did lay down many layers of sediment, and the remians of all the animals that were killed in the flood. Dinosours and chickens lay fossizlized side beside, all from this one catostrophic event. And also, the flood layed down so much sediment, how the heck could someone accurately date something 10 feet below something else to millions of years older......if the band of sediment from the flood is say 100 feet deep? That is ludicris!!! Our main fossil beds were laid down by that catostrophic flood that everyone agrees happened, and you can't overlook the fact that the lifeforms millions of years apart according to evolutionists are embedded in sediment feet from each other. You sure won't hear that from a public school. Nope, they jsut pick and choose the few facts that when twisted around support their idea. It is not us that are twisting the facts around, it is you, not to as you said sound harsh, but all teh science supports what I am saying!

Oh, and intaminfan and me are not say8ing techtonics is a lie, to my knowledge it is happening as we speak. I am not "including science only where it seems to fit", techtonics is at work, and changing the earth, everest is getting taller to my knowledge. But if its getting 1 cm taller a year, you want me to believe that it was once the same level as everything else? You are the one inserting bits of science where it fits. Again, science only backs up what I have said.

Just one other thing......if we came from monkeys, then why is there no record of anything even a tiny bit similar to us in between us and monkeys? Your beloved "luci" is no more then a primate that (like many other primates) can walk upright. It stood about half the height of a full grown human, and had curved hands and feet obviously for climbing trees. It's brain was 1/4 teh size of a human brain. It is in reality just another primate, which has become extinct over the years. There is no "missing link" between man and ape, it just doesn't exist.

Oh, by teh way, I will restate what I said, noone told me to believe this. And I don't think anyone told intaminfan to either.....didn't he used to be on your side about a year ago? He like me just found the truth in all of the lies.

nightride has it exactly right.

I would also like to point out in addition to what he said that in general, all Creationists believe scientific facts....when they're the truth! A lot of science that Evolutionists believe is true is believed by Creationists also. But also a lot of science is false, and it has been proven.

I'm not at all throwing science in at random places, but maybe if you looked into some of this evidence you would see that the facts of Creation fall into place with a lot of scientific facts. It's just that a lot of science is not true and contradicts all the TRUE evidence.

I'm Catholic, but I hate it. I don't believe in religion becuase I believe thats not what God wants.

I haven't seen the movie but I WANT TO SO BAD!!!!!

[coolbeans326]

well, then @ SMer the post you make makes no sense at all. Anyways, why don't you find some other religion that you think is right, I like religion mainly because it gives you some of a perpose in life, If I'm wrong hey, In athiestic terms, the only bad thing that can happen is nothing, but I doubt that there is not a God..

ok, intaminfan: mount everest rises about an inch every year, you even said that in your poast, now, this has been prooven true by laser guided measuring systems and gps. at one inch a year, and its roughly 30,000 feet above sea level, if you multiply that by 12 (once for each inch) you get 360,000 years of continuously rising mountains before its even below sea level again. if you belive what you were saying, then explain this contradiction.

also, the thing with the moths: when a species changes to fit its surroundings, that IS evolution. it is also natural selection, but even that is basically another way of saying "evolution".

to cut to the point, you seemingly only have an elementary understanding of science and are blending it into stories that dont make any sence. so yeah, dont make up stuff, especially stuff that's soo rediculous. also, there is NO way for the earth to have ever been flat enough for the water to completely cover it. and even if it was, how did it get that way and where did the water come from, and where did the people live before / during that time?

Originally posted by nightride


First off, I don't know one CREATIONIST that believes in EVOLUTION. That in itself is a rpetty stupid thing to say man, no offense. There aren't any more species today then there were back on the ark, which by the way was quite big, I have no measurements, but it was big, I will tell you that. If anything there are less species today. But we have to take into account that a species today only means there is one tiny thing different. According to science, people of different races are different species. Umm no. They are different colors, but act, think, talk, learn, all almost identically. Thats just an example. The human is that, a human, not 100 different kinds of people. The term species has been taken way out of proportion.

"Indeed, creationists have previously noted that not every species of land animal need have been on the Ark, as many new species could easily have arisen after the Flood. Anti-creationists have denied that species could arise in only 5,000 years and have accused creationists of being even more evolutionistic than the evolutionists in suggesting that this could happen!"

^^This is a pasted quote from YOUR Institute for Creation Research web page. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm It sounds stupid because it is. It is desparate to make its case. If you are even calling creationist scientists wrong, then you are even more radically conservative than President Bush.[:p]

And for the record, science does notsay different races are different species. The definition of "race" is that it is a smaller difference than the species differentiation. We are all the species Homo sapiens. While there is some argument to what makes a species, the most conservative definition is a population of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. Thus, a donkey and horse can make a mule, but mules are sterile, so a donkey and a horse are considered different species. At the other end of the spectrum, all domesticated dogs are the same species, so a chihuahua could have healthy pups with a St. Bernard barring the practical obstacles. Even with this conservative estimate, there would have had to have been at least 1 million pairs of animals on the Ark.

As for the plate tectonics thing, guess what? Once Everest was as low as everything else. It has been rising at a few feet per century for millions of years. It is called upthrust, where one plate (the Indian plate) collided and went underneath the Asian plate, thrusting it upward. These kind of movements can push very old sediments on top of relatively new ones, which explains your accusations about the fossil record. There are no layers of the same sediment containing both a chicken and a dinosaur. That is misinformation. Show me DATA that proves this, not somebody's opinionated essay. There may be a dinosaur fossil above a chicken fossil, but that is due to upthrust. (Hmmm, the same upthrust that made Mt. Everest! See how these ideas support each other? That's called consistency.) Also, if these sediments were caused by the flood, then all the land creatures would be at the bottom of the sediments because they would die immediately, and then only fish, clams, etc would be in the top 99% of the layers. Regardless of what happened afterwards, all the terrestrial fossils would be in one single sediment layer that radioactively dated to the same moment in time. This obviously is not the case.

And there was no catastrophic flood that covered the whole world. I don't know where you got the idea that everyone belives this. Most Christians don't even believe this. If there was hard evidence, Creationists all over the place would be shouting it from the mountaintops. There have been six major documented extinction events and not one of them has been a flood.

And let me just toss in another branch of science here - climatology. If the entire earth was covered in water, several things would happen:

1) water is more reflective than land, so much less heat would be absorbed by the earth
2) most animals would die, vastly reducing the global production of carbon dioxide through breathing
3) ocean-dwelling plankton would bloom around the world, further absorbing CO2 through photosynthesis

Since CO2 helps our atmosphere absorb and retain heat, a CO2 decline would result in dropping temperatures. The polar ice caps would begin to spread, further increasing earth's reflectivity and causing a positive feedback effect that would result in what is called a "global icehouse event." Basically a planetary ice age that would take millions of years to reverse.

what the hell? of course science is fact! what they teach as science has been observed over and over and there's tons of evidence for it. thats why science changes soo much. its always being updated. as for the creation story (notice that i didnt call it a theory) there is almost no proof except for what was written in a 1000 year old book (the bible) and im saying 1000 years old because although the book was started to be written 5000 yrs ago, it was actually finished 1000 yrs ago. and its all stories, with almost no evidence of any of them actually happening. now, what i'm saying is fact, not belife. you can belive what you want, weather it falls under the category of creation or science, but the creation story always stays the same, no matter how much proof can come about to falsify it.

as for the matter of evolution and the missing link, no luci was not a human, she was an ancestor but not a human. and there are many different ancestors and no real "missing links" between them. there is a chart somewhere in this thread to show that. not to mention the discovery chanel has some show on human evolution about once every day lol.

but yeah, science is fact, creation, a story. we know this because creation has the bible to back it up, and science has years of observation and recordings to back it up. and like i said, creation stays the same story while science changes with every ner discovery. besides, look at how far humans got while beliving in the bible, then the rennaissance came (introducing science) and the world has been getting better ever since thanks to new scientific discoveries

So your saying every scientific discovery is true?(I skimed through your post) And science has been wrong, but they only know that when the "update" or find some thing that proves its wronge. I don't really want to typ right now, Im kindda tired, I have to do my stupid SCIENCE homework!

[coolbeans326]

well, that sure is a lot of typing. I recomend making a page for this all on it's own, People will discuss this forever. Don't you agree??? Go see the Passion, Great Movie, I garantee you that you will like it, or that's your problem if you wasted your money on it, not mine. lol

Originally posted by coaster992001

ok, intaminfan: mount everest rises about an inch every year, you even said that in your poast, now, this has been prooven true by laser guided measuring systems and gps. at one inch a year, and its roughly 30,000 feet above sea level, if you multiply that by 12 (once for each inch) you get 360,000 years of continuously rising mountains before its even below sea level again. if you belive what you were saying, then explain this contradiction.

also, the thing with the moths: when a species changes to fit its surroundings, that IS evolution. it is also natural selection, but even that is basically another way of saying "evolution".

to cut to the point, you seemingly only have an elementary understanding of science and are blending it into stories that dont make any sence. so yeah, dont make up stuff, especially stuff that's soo rediculous. also, there is NO way for the earth to have ever been flat enough for the water to completely cover it. and even if it was, how did it get that way and where did the water come from, and where did the people live before / during that time?

How do you know that Mt. Everest didn't rise fast at first then started continously rising less and less each year? It's logical that this would happen, since if you pushed something it wouldn't go on forever like that at the same rate since the friction acts against it.

You also obviously don't know that natural selection isn't the exact same thing as evolution. Evolution is the false idea that a living form of life changes into a completely different one over time. Natural Selection is the ability for an organism to adapt to it's surroundings. There has been NO evidence that the peppered moth changed it's DNA when it adapted to its surroundings.

You seem like you don't know what your talking about, I don't think its me who has an elementary level education, but you sure seem like you do.

Originally posted by RCTandy

Originally posted by nightride


First off, I don't know one CREATIONIST that believes in EVOLUTION. That in itself is a rpetty stupid thing to say man, no offense. There aren't any more species today then there were back on the ark, which by the way was quite big, I have no measurements, but it was big, I will tell you that. If anything there are less species today. But we have to take into account that a species today only means there is one tiny thing different. According to science, people of different races are different species. Umm no. They are different colors, but act, think, talk, learn, all almost identically. Thats just an example. The human is that, a human, not 100 different kinds of people. The term species has been taken way out of proportion.

"Indeed, creationists have previously noted that not every species of land animal need have been on the Ark, as many new species could easily have arisen after the Flood. Anti-creationists have denied that species could arise in only 5,000 years and have accused creationists of being even more evolutionistic than the evolutionists in suggesting that this could happen!"

^^This is a pasted quote from YOUR Institute for Creation Research web page. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm It sounds stupid because it is. It is desparate to make its case. If you are even calling creationist scientists wrong, then you are even more radically conservative than President Bush.[:p]

And for the record, science does notsay different races are different species. The definition of "race" is that it is a smaller difference than the species differentiation. We are all the species Homo sapiens. While there is some argument to what makes a species, the most conservative definition is a population of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. Thus, a donkey and horse can make a mule, but mules are sterile, so a donkey and a horse are considered different species. At the other end of the spectrum, all domesticated dogs are the same species, so a chihuahua could have healthy pups with a St. Bernard barring the practical obstacles. Even with this conservative estimate, there would have had to have been at least 1 million pairs of animals on the Ark.

As for the plate tectonics thing, guess what? Once Everest was as low as everything else. It has been rising at a few feet per century for millions of years. It is called upthrust, where one plate (the Indian plate) collided and went underneath the Asian plate, thrusting it upward. These kind of movements can push very old sediments on top of relatively new ones, which explains your accusations about the fossil record. There are no layers of the same sediment containing both a chicken and a dinosaur. That is misinformation. Show me DATA that proves this, not somebody's opinionated essay. There may be a dinosaur fossil above a chicken fossil, but that is due to upthrust. (Hmmm, the same upthrust that made Mt. Everest! See how these ideas support each other? That's called consistency.) Also, if these sediments were caused by the flood, then all the land creatures would be at the bottom of the sediments because they would die immediately, and then only fish, clams, etc would be in the top 99% of the layers. Regardless of what happened afterwards, all the terrestrial fossils would be in one single sediment layer that radioactively dated to the same moment in time. This obviously is not the case.

And there was no catastrophic flood that covered the whole world. I don't know where you got the idea that everyone belives this. Most Christians don't even believe this. If there was hard evidence, Creationists all over the place would be shouting it from the mountaintops. There have been six major documented extinction events and not one of them has been a flood.

And let me just toss in another branch of science here - climatology. If the entire earth was covered in water, several things would happen:

1) water is more reflective than land, so much less heat would be absorbed by the earth
2) most animals would die, vastly reducing the global production of carbon dioxide through breathing
3) ocean-dwelling plankton would bloom around the world, further absorbing CO2 through photosynthesis

Since CO2 helps our atmosphere absorb and retain heat, a CO2 decline would result in dropping temperatures. The polar ice caps would begin to spread, further increasing earth's reflectivity and causing a positive feedback effect that would result in what is called a "global icehouse event." Basically a planetary ice age that would take millions of years to reverse.

You should see what he said after that quote [;)]

"The human immune system (the MHC complex) contains many genetic variants, and anti-creationists have seized upon this as proof that the eight human founders could not possibly have carried sufficient diversity to account for the variation observed in the human race today. I was able to demonstrate the fact that the variants are compatible with a recent population founding only thousands of years ago. A study on mitochondrial DNA (which has given rise to the "African Eve" hypothesis) showed how the "molecular clock" it provides can be greatly accelerated, thus making it compatible with the Biblical time frame."

Who said animals couldn't have a diversity somewhat similiar to this as humans do? No new species formed after the ark, but slight variatians occured among the different species. These variations classify as all different species according to anti-creationists. Saying that these variatians are different species but saying that different human races are the same species would be completely contadicting each of those statements. Thus the new variatians of the species were not from evolution at all.

Hmm, i have studied natural selection and i wonder how it applies to humanns, Could someone explain? Explain how our brains devoloped so much that we have all of this technology and what not, and we arnt living in the wild trying to survive? In other words, how does natural selection lead to modern day humans? Everyone in this post has beat around the bush, if this has turned to an evolution creationist debate, then someone tell me "How did we go from primative primates to "intelligent" beings?
Is it correct to say that we, today, are much more smarter than those humans from say the middle ages? Or are we smarter than those from the renaissance era? Did we just stop evolving or somthing? It seems that the humans of today are the same as the humans of the past.