Big Bang Theory

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

It was more of a comment on order and structure with how objects in space are placed. Other than objects under gravitational influence, there is no overall structured layout to the universe.

I disagree. God is a God of order. Everything that exists in this universe has a purpose, so to say that there is no structured layout is pretty ridiculous.

 

[theillestrator]

I disagree. God is a God of order. Everything that exists in this universe has a purpose, so to say that there is no structured layout is pretty ridiculous.

No it's not. Of course you disagree because you don't know what you're talking about. Show me anything that suggests an overall structured layout. I'd truly love to see it. Your god has nothing to do with reality. While the big bang theory is just a theory, it shows more promise than your explanation. Again, there is no overall structured layout to the universe that I have seen. "Everything that exists in this universe has a purpose" =/= a structured layout

 

[VIBE]

I think illestrator already schooled everyone on what it means to have 'holes' in science. It's not your belief that had me raging on this hotel internet but your line of reasoning, which is absolutely atrocious...caveman dont exist because, uh, humans arent hunter-gatherers anymore. Depends on what you define as caveman though, homo erectus =/= homo sapien, even though the latter is a descendent of the former.

And the last part wasnt directed at you...

He didn't school anyone, he stated and that is that. I can see why homoerectus don't exist or why these cave men don't we've advanced but what I'm saying is since cave men are done, gone, "evolved" why aren't monkeys? If monkeys evolved into cave men, do you see what I'm saying?

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

No it's not. Of course you disagree because you don't know what you're talking about. Show me anything that suggests an overall structured layout. I'd truly love to see it. Your god has nothing to do with reality. While the big bang theory is just a theory, it shows more promise than your explanation. Again, there is no overall structured layout to the universe that I have seen. "Everything that exists in this universe has a purpose" =/= a structured layout

All you have to do is look at the relation of our earth to the sun and moon. Now if there were no stability in our structured layout, we would fry if we were any closer to the sun and we would freeze if we were any further from the sun. The tides of the oceans would be all over the place if the moon was any further or closer than it is in orbit. I mean these are not hard to find facts my friend.

 

[theillestrator]

All you have to do is look at the relation of our earth to the sun and moon. Now if there were no stability in our structured layout, we would fry if we were any closer to the sun and we would freeze if we were any further from the sun. The tides of the oceans would be all over the place if the moon was any further or closer than it is in orbit. I mean these are not hard to find facts my friend.

I said objects without gravitational influence. You're thinking too small...hence the use of the words "overall structured layout." I'm talking the relationship between galaxy clusters, etc. I'm well aware of the earth being in the "life zone." That's not what I'm talking about. btw, how do you know that there isn't another planet under the same conditions with life? You don't do you? No, you only know about the bible dealing with the only world its writers knew about, this one.

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

I said objects without gravitational influence. You're thinking too small...hence the use of the words "overall structured layout." I'm talking the relationship between galaxy clusters, etc. I'm well aware of the earth being in the "life zone." That's not what I'm talking about. btw, how do you know that there isn't another planet under the same conditions with life? You don't do you? No, you only know about the bible dealing with the only world its writers knew about, this one.

I don't know, but God does. And what God has revealed to us in His word is that the earth is at the center of all creation. He has given earth to man for us to dwell and fellowship with Him. There is another thread that deals with aliens, so if you want to talk about there non-existance we can carry this discussion over there.

 

[theillestrator]

I don't know, but God does. And what God has revealed to us in His word is that the earth is at the center of all creation. He has given earth to man for us to dwell and fellowship with Him. There is another thread that deals with aliens, so if you want to talk about there non-existance we can carry this discussion over there.

No need to. You will be blind regardless.

 

[weezyfgarbage]

He didn't school anyone, he stated and that is that. I can see why homoerectus don't exist or why these cave men don't we've advanced but what I'm saying is since cave men are done, gone, "evolved" why aren't monkeys? If monkeys evolved into cave men, do you see what I'm saying?

Because that isnt how evolution works. Those monkeys you talk about, we shared a common ancestor with them. However, due to genetic variability, certain alleles were favored in certain environments. As these alleles were the only ones to survive in this specific context, the theory is that only these 'outliers' continued passing their genes on to the next generations, and as a result a new species was formed. Look up allopatric and sympatric speciation (maybe adaptive radiation too but that's not as relevant for this argument imo)

 

[DoUwant2go2Heaven]

Because that isnt how evolution works. Those monkeys you talk about, we shared a common ancestor with them. However, due to genetic variability, certain alleles were favored in certain environments. As these alleles were the only ones to survive in this specific context, the theory is that only these 'outliers' continued passing their genes on to the next generations, and as a result a new species was formed. Look up allopatric and sympatric speciation (maybe adaptive radiation too but that's not as relevant for this argument imo)

5 facts about mutation

First, mutations are harmful, since they are, by definition, copying errors. Only a perfect copy of previously existing information is desirable. Anything else is a copying error, and that means that the information will become worse, not better, over time.

Second, mutations are rare and beneficial ones are unknown. You can’t get better than perfection. Any copy must either remain perfect, or if a change does occur, then that change would have to go “downhill.” Consider these examples. What happens when a story is retold from one person to another in a string of ten people? Do we end up with the original story? If an original cartoon and caption are copied 100 times prior to your receiving it, are the lines a little wavy? Are there black specks on the paper that were not on the original? Has the picture improved or gotten worse for copying? What would happen if a blind, tone-deaf person were to randomly change the tension of the strings on a perfectly tuned piano? Would the piano stay in tune? Would he ever get it back in perfect tune by random chance? These are useful examples of what happens when mutations occur.

Third, mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing ones. We have never seen a new organ appear fully developed and ready to use. We have seen existing organs become deformed and unusable through mutation.

Fourth, mutations do not accumulate; that is, they do not build, or have an additive effect, one after another to form a chain of major evolutionary changes. Any change that does occur is diluted in the very next generation so that there is no long term net beneficial effect.

Fifth, mutations lead to the wrong kind of change. What occurs is only the deterioration and corruption of the previous information, not the building up of information and structures.

The Laws of Genetics do not fit with the random chance progressively “upward” increase in either intelligence or complexity which the theories of evolution would require. The Laws of Genetics were written by the Creator to maintain and preserve the information that He had encoded in the original kinds as described in Genesis Chapter One.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

You do know that even scientists who study all this, creation, planets, life etc say that they as well believe in God.

93% of scientist are athiest.

 

[VIBE]

93% of scientist are athiest.

That isn't a fact though, where do you get that number? Did scientists take a poll?

I'm not just making up what I am saying, I've heard them say it.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

That isn't a fact though, where do you get that number? Did scientists take a poll?

I'm not just making up what I am saying, I've heard them say it.

Yea it was a poll, let me clarify though, biological scientist were at 69% athiest, 79% of physical scientist. 7% believed in the biblical god, the rest were agnostic.

Heres a link to one poll, if you want ill give u thousands more links with the same stuff in them. More than 75% of all scientist wordwide that have participated in those surveys dont believe in god or a biblical god. Theres a reason for that.

http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

 

[VIBE]

Yea it was a poll, let me clarify though, biological scientist were at 69% athiest, 79% of physical scientist. 7% believed in the biblical god, the rest were agnostic.

Heres a link to one poll, if you want ill give u thousands more links with the same stuff in them. More than 75% of all scientist wordwide that have participated in those surveys dont believe in god or a biblical god. Theres a reason for that.

http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html

Thanks.

...........

 

[Punisher__]

No one will ever know 100% of the creation, that is impossible. Yeah, I believe in a creator. Because there has to be one, and for ME that's fact. The bible talks about creation, which I cannot ignore.

I cannot believe and will not believe that, US, such complex creatures came from micro-organisms, that we went through stages of being monkeys - cave man - modern humans. That the planets just formed themselves like explained. That's just me though, thread is on BBT and I'm just stating my thoughts and belief.

We never went through periods of being "monkeys." LOL. Where do you get your info from?

The Big Bang theory suggests that our Universe began at a particular time, 14.7 billion years ago.

Its origin is still unknown. So saying "goddidit", would be perfectly fine because there is nothing to definitively refute that statement. But supernatural explanations are not scientific.

 

[Punisher__]

Because that isnt how evolution works. Those monkeys you talk about, we shared a common ancestor with them. However, due to genetic variability, certain alleles were favored in certain environments. As these alleles were the only ones to survive in this specific context, the theory is that only these 'outliers' continued passing their genes on to the next generations, and as a result a new species was formed. Look up allopatric and sympatric speciation (maybe adaptive radiation too but that's not as relevant for this argument imo)

People are once again showing their ignorance with regard to evolution, and how it works.

People have this misconception that evolution requires the original "parent" species to disappear. Evolution is a process that develops *species* based on events that happen to those *individuals*. If some monkey or ape-like ancestor of humans left the forest to live on the savannah, and they had brothers and cousins who stayed in the forest, it was quite possible that those who stayed back remained something like they were for many generations while those who migrated to the savannah changed due to their new environment.

 

[Punisher__]

5 facts about mutation

First, mutations are harmful, since they are, by definition, copying errors. Only a perfect copy of previously existing information is desirable. Anything else is a copying error, and that means that the information will become worse, not better, over time.

Second, mutations are rare and beneficial ones are unknown. You can’t get better than perfection. Any copy must either remain perfect, or if a change does occur, then that change would have to go “downhill.” Consider these examples. What happens when a story is retold from one person to another in a string of ten people? Do we end up with the original story? If an original cartoon and caption are copied 100 times prior to your receiving it, are the lines a little wavy? Are there black specks on the paper that were not on the original? Has the picture improved or gotten worse for copying? What would happen if a blind, tone-deaf person were to randomly change the tension of the strings on a perfectly tuned piano? Would the piano stay in tune? Would he ever get it back in perfect tune by random chance? These are useful examples of what happens when mutations occur.

Third, mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing ones. We have never seen a new organ appear fully developed and ready to use. We have seen existing organs become deformed and unusable through mutation.

Fourth, mutations do not accumulate; that is, they do not build, or have an additive effect, one after another to form a chain of major evolutionary changes. Any change that does occur is diluted in the very next generation so that there is no long term net beneficial effect.

Fifth, mutations lead to the wrong kind of change. What occurs is only the deterioration and corruption of the previous information, not the building up of information and structures.

The Laws of Genetics do not fit with the random chance progressively “upward” increase in either intelligence or complexity which the theories of evolution would require. The Laws of Genetics were written by the Creator to maintain and preserve the information that He had encoded in the original kinds as described in Genesis Chapter One.

This doesn't say much of anything, though.

First, mutations do not necessarily, or even usually cause the deterioration of genetic material. The most common result of a mutation is simply to change the form or position of the material. A mutation can lead to ANY of the following: 1) an increase of genetic material; 2) a decrease; or 3) no change in amount at all.

Second, evolution is not based solely on mutations, even though mutations are a vital part. Evolution requires variation among individuals in a population, which we know exists.The variation must be in large part inherited, which we know is the case. Finally, some event must change the relative proportions of the different genetic variations in the population. Several things can cause such a change, but the most important one is natural selection, which is differential production of offspring by the variants present in the population. When these conditions are met evolution not only occurs, but can not be avoided.

 

[janklow]

Theres a reason for that.

"peer pressure"

 

[And Step]

It was more of a comment on order and structure with how objects in space are placed. Other than objects under gravitational influence, there is no overall structured layout to the universe.

Ok, well then explain gravity, buoyancy, nine systems of the body that work in harmony, Conception, seed producing food, the need for oxygen, planetary alignment, the moon's effect of our water, Sunlight as a growth precursor and a motion causing force on all planets.

I'll wait.

 

[theillestrator]

Ok, well then explain gravity, buoyancy, nine systems of the body that work in harmony, Conception, seed producing food, the need for oxygen, planetary alignment, the moon's effect of our water, Sunlight as a growth precursor and a motion causing force on all planets.

I'll wait.

Did you even read the post? I said objects outside of gravitational influence and look at your first five words. Yes, you will wait until you read what I posted. I'm talking about the relationship between objects like galaxy clusters, you know, the relationship that doesn't exist. There placement is quite random.

 

[ThaChozenWun]

Did you even read the post? I said objects outside of gravitational influence and look at your first five words. Yes, you will wait until you read what I posted. I'm talking about the relationship between objects like galaxy clusters, you know, the relationship that doesn't exist. There placement is quite random.

Exactly, only things inside of a particular solar system are attached gravitationally, everything outside of the solar systems track is just moving, our solar system is just floating around in space its not stationary, all the other billions of galaxies are just randomly floating around. There is no true structure or placement.