Given the evidence of Life around us, how do you think it all started?
It can be both. First creation, but then evolution.
Ok, you told "started"...
Ok, you told "started"...
Neutron, creation and evolution are two totally incompatible worldviews. No offense (really, I'm not trying to flame you), but if you do not recognize this, it merely shows ignorance on your part.
QUOTE
creation and evolution are two totally incompatible worldviews
Tell me if I'm wrong.
I knew some physicists who believed that God created this world (say this was the Big Bang). And after that it evolved.
Others said God created Earth, plants and animals, but they could evolve from this point.
What's wrong with this point of view?
Yes, that's called theistic evolution, and I definitely do NOT support it. It started back when evolution was starting to grab hold, and basically, a bunch of religious people got together and said "You know, we can't have this evolution business stealing people away from us. So lets just say that creation and evolution are compatible!"...or something like that. The problem is, they aren't, and there is enough evidence (not for either argument, mind you, just for the fact that they are completely incompatible) to fill several volumes...or at least a dedicated topic.
QUOTE (the1physicist+Dec 9 2004, 04:07 AM)
Neutron, creation and evolution are two totally incompatible worldviews.
Please define your terms for clarity.
Instantaneous creation is incompatible with evolution, but nothing says you cannot have evolution punctuated with creative acts.
Some say evolution is incompatible with God, but what they mean is that evolution is incompatible with their conception in God, which is usually based on what they are told is a literal reading of the Bible. If you actually try to assert everthing in the Bible, without checking against the world, then you will have problems. GPS flys in the face of various parts of the Bible which quote a bronze age cosmology.
Another problem is Human nature where people naturally emphasize the parts of the Bible that they agree with and mentally supress or rationalize away the parts of the Bible that they don't agree with. This is why few fundamentalists get into a religeous fervor over portapotties for migrant workers. The Bible has an answer to this problem, but you won't find many who know it.
Catholicism for years forbade laypersons to read the Bible because of these naturally occuring problems.
Please define your terms for clarity.
Instantaneous creation is incompatible with evolution, but nothing says you cannot have evolution punctuated with creative acts.
Some say evolution is incompatible with God, but what they mean is that evolution is incompatible with their conception in God, which is usually based on what they are told is a literal reading of the Bible. If you actually try to assert everthing in the Bible, without checking against the world, then you will have problems. GPS flys in the face of various parts of the Bible which quote a bronze age cosmology.
Another problem is Human nature where people naturally emphasize the parts of the Bible that they agree with and mentally supress or rationalize away the parts of the Bible that they don't agree with. This is why few fundamentalists get into a religeous fervor over portapotties for migrant workers. The Bible has an answer to this problem, but you won't find many who know it.
Catholicism for years forbade laypersons to read the Bible because of these naturally occuring problems.
Where all analytical minds should be careful is that creationism is not an answer or a reason. Once you accept creation, all thought is over. It is only by denying creation that we can continue to reason though why things are the way they are.
If empirical study is to continue, creationism must be completely rejected.
If empirical study is to continue, creationism must be completely rejected.
QUOTE (dog+Dec 10 2004, 12:35 AM)
Where all analytical minds should be careful is that creationism is not an answer or a reason. Once you accept creation, all thought is over. It is only by denying creation that we can continue to reason though why things are the way they are.
If empirical study is to continue, creationism must be completely rejected.
Talk about flame. I wouldn't mind you disagreeing if you actually gave support of your opinions. Anyhow, I'll define my terms.
Here's the way I see it. Creation = in the beginning, god. Whereas evolution = in the beginning, man (or bang, whichever you prefer). I simply see it as a way of man mentally displacing god with himself, simply because he (man) doesn't want to have to obey him (god)....but that's just my opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I personally hate that fact. However, just because I or anyone else wants to think something out of existence, doesn't mean its going to happen. Now as to taking the bible literally, I don't think all of it should be taken literally, but i think most all of it can and should. I'm not saying if I can't explain something, I'm going to say it should be taken figuratively; I'm just saying use common sense when interpreting it. Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. I will give a few, though. First of all, all of the arguments against regular evolution apply to theistic evolution as well. Also, evolution's whole death cycle goes against the fact that the bible says there was no death before adam. (and I do believe that is to be taken literally) Also, theistic evolution necessitates various wild theories such as the gap theory and the day age theory, both of which are about as solid as a block of swiss cheese.
Oh and btw, I don't concider catholicism christianity. It may have started out that way, but somewhere along the line, they split off into an almost cult-like religion.
If empirical study is to continue, creationism must be completely rejected.
Talk about flame. I wouldn't mind you disagreeing if you actually gave support of your opinions. Anyhow, I'll define my terms.
Here's the way I see it. Creation = in the beginning, god. Whereas evolution = in the beginning, man (or bang, whichever you prefer). I simply see it as a way of man mentally displacing god with himself, simply because he (man) doesn't want to have to obey him (god)....but that's just my opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I personally hate that fact. However, just because I or anyone else wants to think something out of existence, doesn't mean its going to happen. Now as to taking the bible literally, I don't think all of it should be taken literally, but i think most all of it can and should. I'm not saying if I can't explain something, I'm going to say it should be taken figuratively; I'm just saying use common sense when interpreting it. Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. I will give a few, though. First of all, all of the arguments against regular evolution apply to theistic evolution as well. Also, evolution's whole death cycle goes against the fact that the bible says there was no death before adam. (and I do believe that is to be taken literally) Also, theistic evolution necessitates various wild theories such as the gap theory and the day age theory, both of which are about as solid as a block of swiss cheese.
Oh and btw, I don't concider catholicism christianity. It may have started out that way, but somewhere along the line, they split off into an almost cult-like religion.
'Creation = in the beginning, god. Whereas evolution = in the beginning, man (or bang, whichever you prefer). I simply see it as a way of man mentally displacing god with himself, simply because he (man) doesn't want to have to obey him (god)....but that's just my opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I personally hate that fact. However, just because I or anyone else wants to think something out of existence, doesn't mean its going to happen.'
The way i see it (and your way of seeing it is fine, but i disagree) is that creation= and evolution= are the same as you state, but I look at is as man wanting to be able to justify his/her existence by having a god with a master plan and the power to forgive and looking forward to a possible nice afterlife etc., and evolution saying you are only wishing for that here is an alternative (although it would be very nice to believe in a master plan and be forgiven, look forward to afterlife)
Evolution and Creation are looking at the same arguments and skewing their beliefs slightly to their instinct about what is true, and in each case sometimes against what they want to believe.
'Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. '
The ideas of extreme evolution and creation are INcompatible, but a collage of selected ideas on either side could be merged into (what i think should be viewed as a separate belief) "theistic evolution." I would find this difficult to do except in the case of taking one or maybe two beliefs from the other side and incorporating them into yours because the opposing beliefs (explicitly backed up with evidence vs. explicitly based on faith) are so incompatible
hope nobody is mad...some people get that way about this
The way i see it (and your way of seeing it is fine, but i disagree) is that creation= and evolution= are the same as you state, but I look at is as man wanting to be able to justify his/her existence by having a god with a master plan and the power to forgive and looking forward to a possible nice afterlife etc., and evolution saying you are only wishing for that here is an alternative (although it would be very nice to believe in a master plan and be forgiven, look forward to afterlife)
Evolution and Creation are looking at the same arguments and skewing their beliefs slightly to their instinct about what is true, and in each case sometimes against what they want to believe.
'Now as for me having to prove evolution and creation aren't compatible, why not instead you (meaning everyone) prove that they are compatible. '
The ideas of extreme evolution and creation are INcompatible, but a collage of selected ideas on either side could be merged into (what i think should be viewed as a separate belief) "theistic evolution." I would find this difficult to do except in the case of taking one or maybe two beliefs from the other side and incorporating them into yours because the opposing beliefs (explicitly backed up with evidence vs. explicitly based on faith) are so incompatible
hope nobody is mad...some people get that way about this
QUOTE
the opposing beliefs (explicitly backed up with evidence vs. explicitly based on faith)
I agree with you on most everything except this. Both creation and evolution are both based on varying degrees of faith. Neither one of them can be proved. You may think that evolution has more "proof" than creation, but I would also argue that some, if not a majority of it is either exaggerated if not fabricated. I can give examples if needed.
Nothing in physics can really ever be proven. They will always just be theories. The difference is that there is actual proof for evolution, while there is no proof or rational reasoning behind creationism. If you believe faith is a justification for believing something is true, then no one can convince you otherwise. You are not rational then. Otherwise, if you believe only in what can be rationally reasoned out, then evolution is clearly the right answer. I am a rational person. Therefore it is obviously evolution to me. It is not just "different levels of faith". I KNOW for a fact that there is more evidence for evolution than anything else. If anything else comes up, i will trust that theory more. No faith involved. As i said, i am a rational person.
NeoSlovakia
NeoSlovakia
neo, I believe we've already had this discussion before the forums were lost, but I'll be glad to do it again. Let's start with the fabricated evidence for evolution. Piltdown man is a good one. The guys who "found" him really took a pig's skull, boiled it down, treated it with acid, scuffed it up a little and called it a missing link. Speaking of missng links, how about the thousands of human skulls in the basement of the Smithsonian Institution? They are actually the skulls of murdered australian aboriginees. All in the name of evolution, of course. How about those pictures of different embryos at different stages of development? I'm pretty sure you can't get an education in evolution without seeing those pictures. Anyhow, those were proved to be purely fabricated. How about the supposed magnetic reversals in the mid-atlantic ridge that evolutions use to age the earth? Nope, you can go anywhere on the ocean floor and there are NO magnetic reversals. There are only areas of weak and strong magnetism. Pure bologna on someone's part. If evidence for evolution is so vastly abundant, why do people (if we should even call them that) have to go to such extremes to fabricate it? I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs. the1
Oh, and by the way, does anybody know why Hitler killed the Jews? I mean, why the Jews in particular? Why not someone else? The reason is because he believed they weren't as evolved as everyone else. He actually had a list he was going on, and the Jews were on the bottom. Next up the list were blacks, and then I think asian people, and so on until you got to blond hair, blue eyed Germans on top. Nice, isn't it? What about evolution's effects on society? It was in the 1960's when they put evolution into the textbooks. The 1960s also marked the golden age of the hippie. The exact year evolution hit the textbooks, divorce rates, single parents, violent crime, and abortion skyrocketed. Simultaneously, SAT scores plummeted. They finally had to renormalize the scores in the 1990s because everyone was scoring so poorly. Since then, things have gotten worse. Prime time television has become X-rated. (janet jackson @ the super bowl) Don't tell me all of this is just a coincidence. If you do, you're just fooling yourself. Not only is evolution wrong (IMO, and because of previously posted evidence), but it is destructive to society. .....Just look at Europe....(I know I'm gonna burn for that one.)
Hey you guys,
The devil asked me to come over here and spoil things for you all. What if there was no anthropomorphic God and there was no hereafter and all those swell times around the banquet table praising God and adoring the fine clothes he's wearing were never to be. What if all this is here for you to make something of it. What I mean is not waiting around for someone else to fix all the "stuff" up but we must do it ourselves?
What if the purpose of all this is so we can provide those "nice" things you are so willing to argue about for all those who came before and for all those to come after. What if the only "practical" way was to store the "essences" of all humanity for all of history inside a big "Quantum Computer" where everyhing can be provided (copyright and royalty free). The only way you could do this if you also managed "Time Travel" as well to collect all those who are on your big list.
Big ask - but if there was a budget out there to fund it I think we could rise to the occasion.
Just think if it is up to Physicists to provide the solution for all the worlds problems. Gosh that would give you loose cannons something to do for once except arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.
Cheers
The devil asked me to come over here and spoil things for you all. What if there was no anthropomorphic God and there was no hereafter and all those swell times around the banquet table praising God and adoring the fine clothes he's wearing were never to be. What if all this is here for you to make something of it. What I mean is not waiting around for someone else to fix all the "stuff" up but we must do it ourselves?
What if the purpose of all this is so we can provide those "nice" things you are so willing to argue about for all those who came before and for all those to come after. What if the only "practical" way was to store the "essences" of all humanity for all of history inside a big "Quantum Computer" where everyhing can be provided (copyright and royalty free). The only way you could do this if you also managed "Time Travel" as well to collect all those who are on your big list.
Big ask - but if there was a budget out there to fund it I think we could rise to the occasion.
Just think if it is up to Physicists to provide the solution for all the worlds problems. Gosh that would give you loose cannons something to do for once except arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.
Cheers
Very funny post, although I never said anything about a purpose. The only things I've said so far have to do with how we got here, not why we got here. Personally, I don't think it even matters why, just how. Oh, and which "nice" things are you referring to? I think you're referring to some of the more outlandish topics, but its hard to tell.
'If evidence for evolution is so vastly abundant, why do people (if we should even call them that) have to go to such extremes to fabricate it?'
You have knocked down 3 (although i am confident you can knock down many more) examples of backup to evolution, and from my perspective you are trying to use a chisel to take down an entire mountain range of evidence. Evolution as a whole, as a concept, is very well grounded in fields of science that are themselves well grounded as they are based on universally accepted postulates extended to explain the originally inexplicable, as well as the use of evidence. There may be cases where science has yet to fill in all the cracks, but they will fill as the idea of evolution ages.
'I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs.'
Creationists have not fabricated evidence because they do not have any evidence to back up their claims on how they believe things occurred or work today. They have some books that are themselves used to back themselves up (circular reasoning) which is ridiculous to be a competitive alternative to a scientific theory.
again, hope i didn't really piss anyone off
You have knocked down 3 (although i am confident you can knock down many more) examples of backup to evolution, and from my perspective you are trying to use a chisel to take down an entire mountain range of evidence. Evolution as a whole, as a concept, is very well grounded in fields of science that are themselves well grounded as they are based on universally accepted postulates extended to explain the originally inexplicable, as well as the use of evidence. There may be cases where science has yet to fill in all the cracks, but they will fill as the idea of evolution ages.
'I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs.'
Creationists have not fabricated evidence because they do not have any evidence to back up their claims on how they believe things occurred or work today. They have some books that are themselves used to back themselves up (circular reasoning) which is ridiculous to be a competitive alternative to a scientific theory.
again, hope i didn't really piss anyone off
Seriously, what evidence could they possibly fabricate?! Hey look everyone, heres a note from god. He says we were wrong and that he created us like this. Damn it, there goes the theory of evolution. Not only is there no evidence for creationism, there CANT BE. Secondly, the1, let me be the first to burn you for that post. What do you think has gotten more people killed, evolution, or religion? Hmmm...not even close. And this has NOTHING to do with what is the truth.
NeoSlovakia
NeoSlovakia
While I agree many people have been killed in the NAME of religion, what they did clearly does not represent the intentions of their religion. (except Islam, of course) Also, I thought of another suggestive observation in favor of creation/the flood. Some guy a while back (I'll have to get the reference) looked at the earth's precession and followed it back through time. Basically he concluded that something hit the earth about 4350 years ago. Now I would say that this was the comet that caused the flood, but something did indeed hit the earth then. They also found the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico. It seems like that is about the right size for something big enough to rock (pun intended) the earth's world. Of course this is by no means definitive proof, but like I said, its only a suggestive observation.
'Also, I thought of another suggestive observation in favor of creation/the flood.'
'Basically he concluded that something hit the earth about 4350 years ago. Now I would say that this was the comet that caused the flood,'
I hope you do not mean that something non-religious or not possible without supernatural intervention caused a worldwide flood. Where would all the water come from? If it came with the comet where did it go?
'Basically he concluded that something hit the earth about 4350 years ago. Now I would say that this was the comet that caused the flood,'
I hope you do not mean that something non-religious or not possible without supernatural intervention caused a worldwide flood. Where would all the water come from? If it came with the comet where did it go?
aah man, interventionallism isnt a choice..
gotta let a kid with pnumonia have a little fun...
leaving now..
gotta let a kid with pnumonia have a little fun...
leaving now..
It is clear that you are a firm believer in God.
I disagree with you quite strongly, but I am not flaming.
All your arguments against evolution do not address evolution at all.
You are using what is known as a hasty generalisation.
If I were to do the same, I could say that David Koresh preached creationism, therefore, if you are a creationist you are a crazy cultist and are more than likely to go on to a mass suicide.
Also, any Hitler/Nazi comparison is one of the lowest arguments a person can make.
The implication that evolutionists are Nazis is a pathetic argument, and shows the weakness of your stance.
A quick quote of yours:
"The exact year evolution hit the textbooks, divorce rates, single parents, violent crime, and abortion skyrocketed."
Correlation DOES NOT imply causation. You claim to be a physicist, but appear to have no understanding of logic. Are you even a scientist?
And another quote:
"Prime time television has become X-rated. (janet jackson @ the super bowl)"
I don't want to be too harsh on you, but have you ever read a little book I like to call the bible? Would you like me to list all of the tales of rape and incest and adultery listed in 'gods' book? You are complaining about a quick flash of a breast? Please, keep your standards standard. Censor the bible to the same level as everything else. I also hate to point out the fact that before the theory of evolution had even been formed there were numerous paintings with *gasp* exposed breasts on them. (X-rated by your definition.)
And another:
"I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs."
What about Genesis? Will that do as fabricated evidence? If not how about you tell me who wrote it, and where they got these 'facts' from and we can discuss its authenticity. I would also like you to tell me how old the world is, based on Genesis. In reference to the second part of your statement, I believe you may have heard of the inquisitors, their job was to kill heretics (Comes the Latin word for choice) because they chose not to believe in 'gods' book.
And finally:
"Not only is evolution wrong (IMO, and because of previously posted evidence), but it is destructive to society."
I will now ask you to name one, just one piece of evidence you listed.
Don't get angry at this post, just give a well thought out logical reply.
I disagree with you quite strongly, but I am not flaming.
All your arguments against evolution do not address evolution at all.
You are using what is known as a hasty generalisation.
If I were to do the same, I could say that David Koresh preached creationism, therefore, if you are a creationist you are a crazy cultist and are more than likely to go on to a mass suicide.
Also, any Hitler/Nazi comparison is one of the lowest arguments a person can make.
The implication that evolutionists are Nazis is a pathetic argument, and shows the weakness of your stance.
A quick quote of yours:
"The exact year evolution hit the textbooks, divorce rates, single parents, violent crime, and abortion skyrocketed."
Correlation DOES NOT imply causation. You claim to be a physicist, but appear to have no understanding of logic. Are you even a scientist?
And another quote:
"Prime time television has become X-rated. (janet jackson @ the super bowl)"
I don't want to be too harsh on you, but have you ever read a little book I like to call the bible? Would you like me to list all of the tales of rape and incest and adultery listed in 'gods' book? You are complaining about a quick flash of a breast? Please, keep your standards standard. Censor the bible to the same level as everything else. I also hate to point out the fact that before the theory of evolution had even been formed there were numerous paintings with *gasp* exposed breasts on them. (X-rated by your definition.)
And another:
"I don't think creationists have ever knowingly fabricated evidence (let alone killed for it) in favor of their beliefs."
What about Genesis? Will that do as fabricated evidence? If not how about you tell me who wrote it, and where they got these 'facts' from and we can discuss its authenticity. I would also like you to tell me how old the world is, based on Genesis. In reference to the second part of your statement, I believe you may have heard of the inquisitors, their job was to kill heretics (Comes the Latin word for choice) because they chose not to believe in 'gods' book.
And finally:
"Not only is evolution wrong (IMO, and because of previously posted evidence), but it is destructive to society."
I will now ask you to name one, just one piece of evidence you listed.
Don't get angry at this post, just give a well thought out logical reply.
QUOTE
I hope you do not mean that something non-religious or not possible without supernatural intervention caused a worldwide flood. Where would all the water come from? If it came with the comet where did it go?
What? How can something be non-religious and require supernatural intervention at the same time? Please clarify.As to the water, it came from four sources. 1. there were already smaller oceans on the earth before the flood. 2. some of the water came from the comet. 3. there was also water in the layer of ice that was magnetically suspended above the earth. and 4. there was a layer of water below the crust of the earth (which cracked (Mid-Atlantic Ridge), releasing it). However, all that water is still here! You have to understand the erath is virtually 100% molted rock: it acts just like a giant water bed. After the flood, the plates of the earth shifted and cracked, creating mountain ranges, etc. The places where we now have oceans sunk down, and where there are mountains now rose up. This, by the way, created massive erosion which can be seen all around the world. One good example is Grand Canyon in the US.
the1 can't be a scientist. he sounds like my baptist preacher from when i was a kid. these people don't really understand what being rational is the way others do, and this is a prime example of that. notice that whatever you say to him glances off without being absorbed. that kind of fundamentalist personality is dangerous. he shamelessly quotes figures that don't exist about some connection between teaching evolution and the decline of civilization, childishly thinks that an exposed breast is X-rated (as if body parts could be evil, period), and shows no knowledge whatsoever about real research that has been done that answers some of the questions people have; questions that eons-old traditions don't answer.
there's no point talking to him. there's only one reality for people like that, and that's the one that his preacher and his parents and his bible talk about, and that keeps him warm and safe in his head and he can't understand why others don't think exactly the same things that he thinks. he probably thinks that the world would be better off if people did, and that somebody should force them to, which is the next logical step in his thought process.
and, by the way, what was that comment about islam supposed to mean? seriously, don't talk about things when you don't know the first thing about them. you sound like a complete ignoramus.
there's no point talking to him. there's only one reality for people like that, and that's the one that his preacher and his parents and his bible talk about, and that keeps him warm and safe in his head and he can't understand why others don't think exactly the same things that he thinks. he probably thinks that the world would be better off if people did, and that somebody should force them to, which is the next logical step in his thought process.
and, by the way, what was that comment about islam supposed to mean? seriously, don't talk about things when you don't know the first thing about them. you sound like a complete ignoramus.
You are doing just as bad as him for stereo typing all creationist on what one person claims to be a creationist. First of all you cant compare nude art to Janet Jackson. That is like comparing a baby tearing off there diaper and running across the room to a Stripper. One is inosent and one is filthy.
To believe in evolution as the creation of earth/man is less than intelligent.
You have a better chance at winning the lottery once a week Than for all of the life that exist on earth to be created at the same time. For the simple fact that the odds for all the situations that would have to take place to even create one cell of one species of any living thing which in itself is so complex that it would be such a great odd within itself. And if you say it didnt all happen at the same time that makes you even more less than intelligent for the fact that if it didnt happen all at the same time it would go against the big bang theory(Bang it was there). The bible states that in the beginning that the spirit of god driffted upon the face of the deep (water). God said let there be fermentation to divide the waters(Land and space). Then everything else started falling in place as he commanded it. Light of day and night (stars and sun and planets). then the vegitation which feeds from the earth. Then all the animals and creatures of the sea which feed off the vegitation. Then man which fed off the vegitation. Then woman from mans rib ( Proven fact women have one more rib than man). Can i prove all this happened like this no. Can you prove all of life on earth and earth were created by evolution/and or big bang no. Which one is easier to believe? Which one is more logical. Then dont forget the fact that some believe we are an experiment of aliens placed on a planet by aliens along with many other ways is beleived to be the beginning. Evolving one thing evolves into something new which is better or more adapted to its existence and surroundings the old is no more and replaced by the new. If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new. Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape. So if this is a lie taught by evolutionist then why should i beleive anything else they have to say. There is not one fact that says that earth and all life on and in and around it could not have happened by creation. But yet there are many facts and discoveries that do support creationism. But yet i showed you one fact of many that says evolution is a lie. The missing link, the reason there is a missing link is the fact that there is no link. Everthing has an opposite. For every action there is a reaction an opposite force. for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space. God doesnt want to be proved that he exist because he wants us to beleive through faith Thus there is an opposite which is satan wich does want to prove that he exist and claims he is better than God which states that there is a God. I have seen satinist do many supernatural things which proved to me that supernatural does exist. One is truth, love and life(God) where the other is lies, hate and destruction(satan). So you make your own educated decision on what your going to believe. I have made mine. Have i proved God exist no but that was not my intention. God dont want to prove he exist so why should i say im any better than God and try and prove it. You dont have to believe in God for me to believe. But instead i shared some of what i know and believe to be true take it for what its worth.
You have a better chance at winning the lottery once a week Than for all of the life that exist on earth to be created at the same time. For the simple fact that the odds for all the situations that would have to take place to even create one cell of one species of any living thing which in itself is so complex that it would be such a great odd within itself. And if you say it didnt all happen at the same time that makes you even more less than intelligent for the fact that if it didnt happen all at the same time it would go against the big bang theory(Bang it was there). The bible states that in the beginning that the spirit of god driffted upon the face of the deep (water). God said let there be fermentation to divide the waters(Land and space). Then everything else started falling in place as he commanded it. Light of day and night (stars and sun and planets). then the vegitation which feeds from the earth. Then all the animals and creatures of the sea which feed off the vegitation. Then man which fed off the vegitation. Then woman from mans rib ( Proven fact women have one more rib than man). Can i prove all this happened like this no. Can you prove all of life on earth and earth were created by evolution/and or big bang no. Which one is easier to believe? Which one is more logical. Then dont forget the fact that some believe we are an experiment of aliens placed on a planet by aliens along with many other ways is beleived to be the beginning. Evolving one thing evolves into something new which is better or more adapted to its existence and surroundings the old is no more and replaced by the new. If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new. Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape. So if this is a lie taught by evolutionist then why should i beleive anything else they have to say. There is not one fact that says that earth and all life on and in and around it could not have happened by creation. But yet there are many facts and discoveries that do support creationism. But yet i showed you one fact of many that says evolution is a lie. The missing link, the reason there is a missing link is the fact that there is no link. Everthing has an opposite. For every action there is a reaction an opposite force. for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space. God doesnt want to be proved that he exist because he wants us to beleive through faith Thus there is an opposite which is satan wich does want to prove that he exist and claims he is better than God which states that there is a God. I have seen satinist do many supernatural things which proved to me that supernatural does exist. One is truth, love and life(God) where the other is lies, hate and destruction(satan). So you make your own educated decision on what your going to believe. I have made mine. Have i proved God exist no but that was not my intention. God dont want to prove he exist so why should i say im any better than God and try and prove it. You dont have to believe in God for me to believe. But instead i shared some of what i know and believe to be true take it for what its worth.
Hi Iam who Iam,
This is God Elf speaking.
In the beginning there were Elves and Hobbits and Creationists. The Hobbits lived in Indonesia and a few other places but then came the Christian Creationists and they knew they were good and they knew they were right, and they killed all the Hobbits because they didn't fit in with Creationism. They were not found in the book of life so it was death for them.
They let the Giants (Neanderthals) go on for a while and then they killed all them too. Then they had to turn on each other because there wasn't much else to kill other than little furry things. Alright then we aught to kill all the little furry things too. Then they found out they had worshipped the wrong God all the time. Bad choice guys. Oops! Sorry all those other creatures and other religions we only did it because we thought that is what You (God) wanted. I'll tell you what I'll do... I'll cut you (God) in for a piece of the action say 10% and then that will make all things honky dory! You will also get a card from me for Xmas. That proves we are on your side. You and me God.
God zapped them.
Thus endith the lesson from the God Elf..... He was pretending he was God but so was Iam Who Iam only he was not pretending so he went on a rampage through McDonalds with an axe and got the elf with the axe while he was eating his Sesame Seed Bun.
But on the third day the elf got a refund. 
(All donations accepted)
Cheers
This is God Elf speaking.
In the beginning there were Elves and Hobbits and Creationists. The Hobbits lived in Indonesia and a few other places but then came the Christian Creationists and they knew they were good and they knew they were right, and they killed all the Hobbits because they didn't fit in with Creationism. They were not found in the book of life so it was death for them.
They let the Giants (Neanderthals) go on for a while and then they killed all them too. Then they had to turn on each other because there wasn't much else to kill other than little furry things. Alright then we aught to kill all the little furry things too. Then they found out they had worshipped the wrong God all the time. Bad choice guys. Oops! Sorry all those other creatures and other religions we only did it because we thought that is what You (God) wanted. I'll tell you what I'll do... I'll cut you (God) in for a piece of the action say 10% and then that will make all things honky dory! You will also get a card from me for Xmas. That proves we are on your side. You and me God.
God zapped them.
Thus endith the lesson from the God Elf..... He was pretending he was God but so was Iam Who Iam only he was not pretending so he went on a rampage through McDonalds with an axe and got the elf with the axe while he was eating his Sesame Seed Bun.
But on the third day the elf got a refund. (All donations accepted)Cheers
I have a deffinate belief on the topic of 'Creation and Evolution', but for grins I'm going to take a neutral stance. Ok, from the Evolutionists side we (we meaning the group of believers in Evolution, I'm not saying I believe this) believe that the 'Big Bang Theory' occured by an extreme amount of energy all balled up into a small amount of space, and that space was shrinking until it exploded thus causing matter to go hurling through space and everything evolved from there. From the Creationists side we (again-we meaning the group of believers in Evolution, I'm not saying I believe this) believe "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". On the first day God created light, not the sun but light. (side note more as a joke, if God is light then did He just create Himself?) The sun wasn't created until the 4th day. The sun, moon, and stars hadn't been created at this point, so we have no reference of time. The original text for "day" means a time period, not a 24 hour 'day' as we commonly refer to it now. An example for the Creationist viewpoint 'The day of the Lord' which is today, yesterday, and until He shall return. So we have an expanse of heavens and a planet known as earth, with no time reference. God decided "hey, lets move to day two" so He made it dark and light for 'day one' to end. So based on our time period that could have been 50 billion years, or 3 seconds...take your pick. It wasn't until the 4th day that we get a reference of time, but the word 'day' is STILL the time period 'day' and not the specific 24 hour day as we know it. But since the sun, moon, and stars were created we do have a reference to time. Lets move backward a second to day 3, God created plants, vegetation, whatever you wanna call it. How long does it take a tree to grow from a seed to a big 'ol tree? 50 yearsish? (yearsish...I like that word). As we all know from our pre-school sunday school classes, Adam and Eve ate fruit, so these trees had to have had fruit on them, so the trees couldn't be seeds. So, day 4 we have time reference. Could it be that both creation and evolution can be true in the same world? I could argue that it could. The earth could be millions of years old. And yes evolution DOES IN FACT exist today. And if you would think of argueing that fact, you're an uneducated idiot that should be taken to the street corner and shot for your massive stupidity. A prime example, the seedless watermelon. How does that work? well, man has somehow become smart enough to create that seedless watermelon. Man has mentally evolved and become smarter. That watermelon has evolved with man's help. Now what I'm not saying is that tomorrow your local zoo's ape's are going to bare human offspring. I could be wrong, but so far there has been no laws of Science that contradict the Bible. I'm talking about pure science, not opinionated science. I think we could both be right and just not know it. I'm not saying I believe in Creation, Evolution, both, or neither, but I'm giving an unbiased opinion. I've spent years studying the two, and still have no conclusion on which is 'right'. I do however believe there is a God. I would rather believe He is there and be wrong, than not believe He is there and be wrong. The stakes are to much against me if I choose to believe He is not there...Hell won't be pretty if God does in fact exist and I choose not to believe. Well, have fun with your 'arguement', and I hope I have not offended anyone, because that is not my intention.
that's all well and good depending on who you are arguing with.
if you happen to be arguing with a strict Biblical interpretation, then it doesn't work.
according to them, the whole thing happened exactly the way it's written. the trees were made full grown, cause god can do that, Man was created from the dirt full grown, naked, and able to live for 700 years, and the earth is just a few thousand years old.
though when god made more people for Adams sons to marry I'm not real sure on.
and why we have so many different races on the earth so spread out from one another, when just 4000 years ago every man woman and child was killed save for Noah and his Kids.
How the Kangaroos got back to Austrailia is another mystery, as is why aren't they're Kangaroos off of Austrailia. especially considering how fragile Austrailia's eco system is and how much damage occurs when a foriegn animal is let loose in the wild.
of course they can accept that God was always there, and somehow became omnipotent without any creator, yet they can't except that the universe could have appeared and became sentient without someone helping.
why one omnipotent being coming out of the either is acceptable, but not a bunch of non omnipotent beings doing the same isn't is beyond me.
if you happen to be arguing with a strict Biblical interpretation, then it doesn't work.
according to them, the whole thing happened exactly the way it's written. the trees were made full grown, cause god can do that, Man was created from the dirt full grown, naked, and able to live for 700 years, and the earth is just a few thousand years old.
though when god made more people for Adams sons to marry I'm not real sure on.
and why we have so many different races on the earth so spread out from one another, when just 4000 years ago every man woman and child was killed save for Noah and his Kids.
How the Kangaroos got back to Austrailia is another mystery, as is why aren't they're Kangaroos off of Austrailia. especially considering how fragile Austrailia's eco system is and how much damage occurs when a foriegn animal is let loose in the wild.
of course they can accept that God was always there, and somehow became omnipotent without any creator, yet they can't except that the universe could have appeared and became sentient without someone helping.
why one omnipotent being coming out of the either is acceptable, but not a bunch of non omnipotent beings doing the same isn't is beyond me.
A couple of things to note...
About the extra water for the flood. The Bible indicates a pre-flood water barrier surrounding the planet. Some greater amount of moisture completely surrounding the earth. This would have created something like a terrarium worldwide. My geology professor (my degree) showed me pictures during his exploration and research of the artic region years ago. They were digging up Palm trees, still green. Pretty compelling evidence that, if nothing else, there has been a significant climate change throughout time. He postulated that this was good evidence for, at one time, a worldwide uniform coverage of the planet (at least taken with his other 40 years as a field research geologist).
Again, the Bible states that at the time of the flood, this canopy was released, flooding the earth.
Just another piece to ponder.
As far as evolution goes...who has read Darwins work on the subject? It's quite a compelling work, very well done, and quite complete. However, even Darwin allowed that some significant holes exist in this thoery. In fact, while we see evolutionary transitions in species (microevolution), we can find no firm evidence of macroevolution. The gene pool in any given species has the ability to allow for variation and adaption. It does not however mean that a fish can become a human. I have watched this subject for the past 20 years, in all of it's forms and topics. Even as a geologist, I have to say the evidence for evolution simply does not exist. In reality, over the past 20 years, we've found more and more evidence that weakens evolution as a theory.
However, none of this really speaks to the issue. Many scientifically minded people would never accept the concept of a supreme being that serves as creator and God. Pride is certainly a factor here, self-important intellect another. This can often be heard in the responses given by followers of the religion of self and science.
Science taken at it's core is a wonderful thing, and serves man well. Religion in it's purest form (Biblical Christianity), betters man in every way. When man perverts either of these to suit his own needs, that is when problems arise. Enough scientific, historical, psychological, and ethical evidences exist to prove out the truths of the Bible. Not always from a scientific stand point, for it was not written to be a scientific proof text.
About the extra water for the flood. The Bible indicates a pre-flood water barrier surrounding the planet. Some greater amount of moisture completely surrounding the earth. This would have created something like a terrarium worldwide. My geology professor (my degree) showed me pictures during his exploration and research of the artic region years ago. They were digging up Palm trees, still green. Pretty compelling evidence that, if nothing else, there has been a significant climate change throughout time. He postulated that this was good evidence for, at one time, a worldwide uniform coverage of the planet (at least taken with his other 40 years as a field research geologist).
Again, the Bible states that at the time of the flood, this canopy was released, flooding the earth.
Just another piece to ponder.
As far as evolution goes...who has read Darwins work on the subject? It's quite a compelling work, very well done, and quite complete. However, even Darwin allowed that some significant holes exist in this thoery. In fact, while we see evolutionary transitions in species (microevolution), we can find no firm evidence of macroevolution. The gene pool in any given species has the ability to allow for variation and adaption. It does not however mean that a fish can become a human. I have watched this subject for the past 20 years, in all of it's forms and topics. Even as a geologist, I have to say the evidence for evolution simply does not exist. In reality, over the past 20 years, we've found more and more evidence that weakens evolution as a theory.
However, none of this really speaks to the issue. Many scientifically minded people would never accept the concept of a supreme being that serves as creator and God. Pride is certainly a factor here, self-important intellect another. This can often be heard in the responses given by followers of the religion of self and science.
Science taken at it's core is a wonderful thing, and serves man well. Religion in it's purest form (Biblical Christianity), betters man in every way. When man perverts either of these to suit his own needs, that is when problems arise. Enough scientific, historical, psychological, and ethical evidences exist to prove out the truths of the Bible. Not always from a scientific stand point, for it was not written to be a scientific proof text.
‘As to the water, it came from four sources. 1. there were already smaller oceans on the earth before the flood. 2. some of the water came from the comet. 3. there was also water in the layer of ice that was magnetically suspended above the earth. and 4. there was a layer of water below the crust of the earth (which cracked (Mid-Atlantic Ridge), releasing it). However, all that water is still here! You have to understand the erath is virtually 100% molted rock: it acts just like a giant water bed.’
Can you prove that a layer of ice was magnetically suspended above the earth? Why do you think this? Why was ice suspended above the earth? How would ice be magnetically suspended above the earth? Was all this ice magically charged so that a magnetic field could hold it there? If so then why isn’t earth charged one way or the other now? What about the temperature on earth while this ice was suspended above the earth? Snow (and ice would be close) has an albedo of 0.8 and reflects 80% of the light that hits it. The earth would be cold and starved for sunlight and everything would die. Basically, THIS IDEA IS INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS!!!!! The water below the crust is equally ridiculous, but I’m not gonna waste bits on that.
‘This, by the way, created massive erosion which can be seen all around the world. One good example is Grand Canyon in the US.’
You honestly believe that erosion on the scale of the Grand Canyon and mountain ranges can be created on a scale of 6000 years? That is bloody ridiculous. Hills would be forming every time there was a thunderstorm.
‘The bible states that in the beginning that…’
Don’t use anything from the bible to prove what the bible says. The bible has nothing else to back it up especially what it says happened before people were even here according to the bible so don’t use a source to back up what that same source says.
‘Can i prove all this happened like this no. Can you prove all of life on earth and earth were created by evolution/and or big bang no. Which one is easier to believe? Which one is more logical.’
Really, think about it. Which one is more logical. I think we can agree that the vast majority of evolution (w/o the big bang, but all the way back to it) is without a doubt POSSIBLE, although depending on who you ask there are different degrees of improbability attached to different parts of the theory/theories. According to some theoretical physics the big bang could be caused by a quantum fluctuation, or a more radical idea of branes colliding. None of this requires a supernatural entity to create everything everywhere over a week. Has anyone proved a supernatural entity exists? Have you seen things popping out of nowhere? Then why is a theory that posits things happening that have never been observed happening more logical than one that posits things happening that are certainly possible if improbable?
‘If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new. Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape.’
You have no understanding of evolution. NONE! Go find out what the theory is then attack the main idea behind it.
‘For every action there is a reaction an opposite force. for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space.’
Lightning is the reaction. A charge opposite to one in the ground develops in a cloud and the lightning bolt is the reaction to that inequality. No lightning shooting off in space, sorry.
‘So you make your own educated decision on what your going to believe. I have made mine.’
You need to get an education on the topics you’re deciding on before you make a decision. You have made a decision, however it is not educated.
BTW: The guest who wrote the two sided argument is a funny guy, thx for the humour.
Can you prove that a layer of ice was magnetically suspended above the earth? Why do you think this? Why was ice suspended above the earth? How would ice be magnetically suspended above the earth? Was all this ice magically charged so that a magnetic field could hold it there? If so then why isn’t earth charged one way or the other now? What about the temperature on earth while this ice was suspended above the earth? Snow (and ice would be close) has an albedo of 0.8 and reflects 80% of the light that hits it. The earth would be cold and starved for sunlight and everything would die. Basically, THIS IDEA IS INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS!!!!! The water below the crust is equally ridiculous, but I’m not gonna waste bits on that.
‘This, by the way, created massive erosion which can be seen all around the world. One good example is Grand Canyon in the US.’
You honestly believe that erosion on the scale of the Grand Canyon and mountain ranges can be created on a scale of 6000 years? That is bloody ridiculous. Hills would be forming every time there was a thunderstorm.
‘The bible states that in the beginning that…’
Don’t use anything from the bible to prove what the bible says. The bible has nothing else to back it up especially what it says happened before people were even here according to the bible so don’t use a source to back up what that same source says.
‘Can i prove all this happened like this no. Can you prove all of life on earth and earth were created by evolution/and or big bang no. Which one is easier to believe? Which one is more logical.’
Really, think about it. Which one is more logical. I think we can agree that the vast majority of evolution (w/o the big bang, but all the way back to it) is without a doubt POSSIBLE, although depending on who you ask there are different degrees of improbability attached to different parts of the theory/theories. According to some theoretical physics the big bang could be caused by a quantum fluctuation, or a more radical idea of branes colliding. None of this requires a supernatural entity to create everything everywhere over a week. Has anyone proved a supernatural entity exists? Have you seen things popping out of nowhere? Then why is a theory that posits things happening that have never been observed happening more logical than one that posits things happening that are certainly possible if improbable?
‘If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new. Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape.’
You have no understanding of evolution. NONE! Go find out what the theory is then attack the main idea behind it.
‘For every action there is a reaction an opposite force. for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space.’
Lightning is the reaction. A charge opposite to one in the ground develops in a cloud and the lightning bolt is the reaction to that inequality. No lightning shooting off in space, sorry.
‘So you make your own educated decision on what your going to believe. I have made mine.’
You need to get an education on the topics you’re deciding on before you make a decision. You have made a decision, however it is not educated.
BTW: The guest who wrote the two sided argument is a funny guy, thx for the humour.
Guest_curious, if you're going to flame me, you should at least get your facts straight. FACT: super-cold ice IS DIAMAGNETIC. Try it sometime, it works. And yes, snow is very reflective, but ice is completely transparent (unless it contains imperfections, etc.). Also, why exactly is water below the crust of the earth ridiculous? You can drill almost anywhere and get a well. How do you explain why there's water undergound (and I mean below the impermeable bedrock) if it was not preexisting?
QUOTE
Hills would be forming every time there was a thunderstorm.
Actually, yes, we had a thunderstorm here last night, and there were 13 large land slides along the 1.4 miles of road to the city. Also, someone made the comment on how god made 'light' on day one. (not the first day, there's a difference) Actually, that is a poor translation. What that phrase literally translates to is "there was disorder, and there was order, day one." But that's just as a side note.
too bad we can't dig to below the crust or even close, which is where the quote said the water came from, so...don't try to say its coming from there
thx for letting me know about ice being diamagnetic, but still don't see how it got there or came down
thx for letting me know about ice being diamagnetic, but still don't see how it got there or came down
Disclaimer:
It will be impossible to respond to the comments by 'Iam who Iam' without flaming.
Stupidity in all forms must be stamped out in order to reach a brighter future.
" You are doing just as bad as him for stereo typing all creationist on what one person claims to be a creationist."
Point out where I stereotyped (one word) anyone.
"That is like comparing a baby tearing off there diaper and running across the room to a Stripper. One is inosent and one is filthy."
Standards are standards, and breasts are breasts. You can't pick and choose which you define as filthy, and which are innocent.
" To believe in evolution as the creation of earth/man is less than intelligent."
That is a fantastic statement coming from someone who cannot spell innocent.
"You have a better chance at winning the lottery once a week Than for all of the life that exist on earth to be created at the same time. For the simple fact that the odds for all the situations that would have to take place to even create one cell of one species of any living thing which in itself is so complex that it would be such a great odd within itself."
You are certainly not a scientist.
Would you not agree that in a virtually infinite universe, not only is the most improbable thing able to happen, it is almost guaranteed to happen somewhere.
With the vastness of this universe around us, the amazing thing would be for life to have not existed.
Just remember, a one in a million occurance happens if you try it one million times.
"makes you even more less than intelligent"
I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million words cried out in torment and were silenced at once.
"Proven fact women have one more rib than man"
You absolute idiot. Look in any, I repeat ANY accredited anatomy book, have a look at Xrays. Here is a quote: 'Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.' (Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.)
Males and females have exactly the same amount of ribs, males are not lopsided you moron!
"If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new."
Both man and ape share the same origins. We branched off, and humans have evolved at an accelerated rate.
"Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape."
Well, thankyou for such conclusive proof.
"for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space."
One word, idiot.
"God doesnt want to be proved that he exist because he wants us to beleive through faith Thus there is an opposite which is satan"
I love hearin about people who believe in satan, it is so amusing.
Tell me, if 'god' is all powerful, what can oppose his will?
NOTHING.
A question for anyone who believes in creationism and that the bible tracks the history of the universe since 'god' created it. I would love any of you to give me an explaination. It is a simple little one word question:
Dinosaurs.
It will be impossible to respond to the comments by 'Iam who Iam' without flaming.
Stupidity in all forms must be stamped out in order to reach a brighter future.
" You are doing just as bad as him for stereo typing all creationist on what one person claims to be a creationist."
Point out where I stereotyped (one word) anyone.
"That is like comparing a baby tearing off there diaper and running across the room to a Stripper. One is inosent and one is filthy."
Standards are standards, and breasts are breasts. You can't pick and choose which you define as filthy, and which are innocent.
" To believe in evolution as the creation of earth/man is less than intelligent."
That is a fantastic statement coming from someone who cannot spell innocent.
"You have a better chance at winning the lottery once a week Than for all of the life that exist on earth to be created at the same time. For the simple fact that the odds for all the situations that would have to take place to even create one cell of one species of any living thing which in itself is so complex that it would be such a great odd within itself."
You are certainly not a scientist.
Would you not agree that in a virtually infinite universe, not only is the most improbable thing able to happen, it is almost guaranteed to happen somewhere.
With the vastness of this universe around us, the amazing thing would be for life to have not existed.
Just remember, a one in a million occurance happens if you try it one million times.
"makes you even more less than intelligent"
I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if a million words cried out in torment and were silenced at once.
"Proven fact women have one more rib than man"
You absolute idiot. Look in any, I repeat ANY accredited anatomy book, have a look at Xrays. Here is a quote: 'Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth.' (Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.)
Males and females have exactly the same amount of ribs, males are not lopsided you moron!
"If man evolved from ape then ape would no longer exist old would be replaced by the new."
Both man and ape share the same origins. We branched off, and humans have evolved at an accelerated rate.
"Fact there is not only one kind of ape but many different species of ape. So there is your fact that man could not evolve from ape."
Well, thankyou for such conclusive proof.
"for every bolt of lightning that strikes to the ground there is an opposite that shoots into space."
One word, idiot.
"God doesnt want to be proved that he exist because he wants us to beleive through faith Thus there is an opposite which is satan"
I love hearin about people who believe in satan, it is so amusing.
Tell me, if 'god' is all powerful, what can oppose his will?
NOTHING.
A question for anyone who believes in creationism and that the bible tracks the history of the universe since 'god' created it. I would love any of you to give me an explaination. It is a simple little one word question:
Dinosaurs.
This whole argument is enough to drive an educated person to distraction..
how bout this... rather than keep arguing this out.. can the creationists please please give us some tests we can run, or something that will allow us to test
their theory rather than substantiation by negating darwinism and then assuming
its place.
thats all.. so far the darwin people have a lot more going for them...
and all decent scientists would entertain any new one, just let it hold water on its own.. if its good it will win over darwinism by its own strength...
the concept of earth orbiting the sun won out not by a sudden epiphany of everyone in the face of the fact.. the earth orbiting the sun is a model that is easier to compute and by just that virtue alone easier to make predictions.. so over time it won out..
it didnt win because of zealoty and attacking alternative ideas.. it won by being a better idea, and better ideas have better staying power..
then maybe you guys can restrict hanging out in the darwin areas, and archeology areas, instead of in physics and engineering and gaming, and all manner of places.. science fact is not established by popular consensus.. science has a lot of unpopular ideas that again, have staying power..
K
how bout this... rather than keep arguing this out.. can the creationists please please give us some tests we can run, or something that will allow us to test
their theory rather than substantiation by negating darwinism and then assuming
its place.
thats all.. so far the darwin people have a lot more going for them...
and all decent scientists would entertain any new one, just let it hold water on its own.. if its good it will win over darwinism by its own strength...
the concept of earth orbiting the sun won out not by a sudden epiphany of everyone in the face of the fact.. the earth orbiting the sun is a model that is easier to compute and by just that virtue alone easier to make predictions.. so over time it won out..
it didnt win because of zealoty and attacking alternative ideas.. it won by being a better idea, and better ideas have better staying power..
then maybe you guys can restrict hanging out in the darwin areas, and archeology areas, instead of in physics and engineering and gaming, and all manner of places.. science fact is not established by popular consensus.. science has a lot of unpopular ideas that again, have staying power..
K
the reality is this when someone beleive that this planet and his animal was created in 7 days, there is a brainswash, somewhere, by some preacher, the creation of this world is evolution on million of years, the rest is religious beleifs, you are free to beleive that Bush is a good president, but i am free to beleive that this administration is dangerous, and go backward,
As for the Ape into human where there are still Apes,
say you have two groups of Apes. one leaves the other and they have nothing to do with each other anymore. they go across a mountain range, or a river floods and they are seperated. what ever. each group will continue to inter breed amongst themselves.
each group will select members best suited to their new environment. over time the two groups will diverge as random mutations in one group will not be passed back to the other group. over time, the two groups will be vastly different. they will no longer be the same species, yet both species will continue to exist and even thrive. in their own environment. if they are brought back together, one may wipe the other out, or they may co-exist peacefully.
this is the basis of evolution. this is the very thing that Darwin noticed when he went to the Galupogos islands. Animals that had migrated there from the main land were different than the ones on the mainland. but one could still tell that at one point they had a common relative.
say you have two groups of Apes. one leaves the other and they have nothing to do with each other anymore. they go across a mountain range, or a river floods and they are seperated. what ever. each group will continue to inter breed amongst themselves.
each group will select members best suited to their new environment. over time the two groups will diverge as random mutations in one group will not be passed back to the other group. over time, the two groups will be vastly different. they will no longer be the same species, yet both species will continue to exist and even thrive. in their own environment. if they are brought back together, one may wipe the other out, or they may co-exist peacefully.
this is the basis of evolution. this is the very thing that Darwin noticed when he went to the Galupogos islands. Animals that had migrated there from the main land were different than the ones on the mainland. but one could still tell that at one point they had a common relative.
QUOTE (realistic+Dec 14 2004, 11:39 AM)
the reality is this when someone beleive that this planet and his animal was created in 7 days, there is a brainswash, somewhere, by some preacher, the creation of this world is evolution on million of years, the rest is religious beleifs, you are free to beleive that Bush is a good president, but i am free to beleive that this administration is dangerous, and go backward,
I gotta love folks who have to throw their political leanings into a debate on religion vs science.
I gotta love folks who have to throw their political leanings into a debate on religion vs science.
It comes right down to this ... Evolution is NOT a theory it is a fact. It is proven in all of the relative disciplines. All life on earth has a vast majority of identical genes. Right down to the lowly fruit fly which is approx 89% identical to you and me. Humans are just the dominate primate. The smartest, most violent animal on the planet. Life can be created in the lab, at least the building blocks of life : Amino Acids. In an experiment that has been duplicated numerous times since the 1950's shows in reproducible results that completely natural processes can create life.
The test was this.. Scientists know what the composition of the primeval earth atmosphere was like (by observing the gases trapped in rock from the period).. They took Hydrogen , Nitrogen, Oxygen , Fluorine, etc and placed it in a sealed bell jar. The mixture matched what was observed in the primitive rock. They added a carbon arc to the jar to simulate lighting.. They gave it a good shake and let it run for a few weeks... After the time has elapsed they opened the jar to find a brown goo at the bottom. Upon investigation it was discovered that it was amino acids that have collected.
So amino acids are easily created by completely natural processes. Turns out that life is based on only 20 of these acids, with a left handed symmetry (kirality). Turns out that as soon as the earth was ready life started to form.. it did not wait very long.
The Jump from amino acids to proteins took considerably longer. A protein is a series of amino acids that line up conga style to form long chains. Proteins are what DNA is made from. The fact that all life has so many base pair sequences identical to ALL life proves that we all had a common lineage. All life on earth is more alike than unlike. Entropy tells us that this commonality in base pairs is not by chance at all.. It would be like rolling a dice with identical outcomes 100,000 times in a row. Just not going to happen anytime soon.
We all have common ancestors. Life was created here by completely understandable processes.
We can also thank the fact that we have "Near Perfect" reproduction. There are no life forms on the planet that procreates through perfect reproduction. If any did all members of a species would be genetically identical.. very bad from a survival standpoint. Any one virus or bacterium could wipe the whole civilization out. No diversity means no protection from extinction. This in a way is happening to the wild cheetahs in Africa. Inbreeding has made them almost all identical genetically. Great worry exists in there imminent extinction.
This imperfect reproduction that DNA replication affords is a blessing and curse. This slight randomness creates all the diversity you observe around you. Some randomness (mutations) just by complete chance are more effective to survival in the environment, others are not. The mutations that are beneficial provides a survival advantage that the other life forms do not have. If tragedy strikes (randomness again) the life forms with the advantage survive while the life forms without the advantageous mutation perish. The survivors pass on the advantage to there offspring.. keeping the positive traits in the gene pool.. This process of completely random reproduction goes on and on influenced by environmental factors.. There are winners (with an advantage) and losers (without advantage). The winners survive to reproduce because there mutation provides survival advantage. There is inevitably many more losers than winners in the game of life.
Since life started in this manner that is why we all have common DNA.. we are the lucky by product of countless mutations, some were good, most were not advantageous to life at all. They have long since disappeared. Everything life form you see are winners in this long lottery of life.
Life is not magical or divine. Just an effect of natural processes. Our planet was forged inside a star. All the heavy elements that make up our planet and ourselves was once blown into space from an ancient supernovae. Over time gravitational forces have created our solar system from the debris. Our planet is star stuff.. we are star stuff. As you read this realize you are the Universe trying to understand itself.
The test was this.. Scientists know what the composition of the primeval earth atmosphere was like (by observing the gases trapped in rock from the period).. They took Hydrogen , Nitrogen, Oxygen , Fluorine, etc and placed it in a sealed bell jar. The mixture matched what was observed in the primitive rock. They added a carbon arc to the jar to simulate lighting.. They gave it a good shake and let it run for a few weeks... After the time has elapsed they opened the jar to find a brown goo at the bottom. Upon investigation it was discovered that it was amino acids that have collected.
So amino acids are easily created by completely natural processes. Turns out that life is based on only 20 of these acids, with a left handed symmetry (kirality). Turns out that as soon as the earth was ready life started to form.. it did not wait very long.
The Jump from amino acids to proteins took considerably longer. A protein is a series of amino acids that line up conga style to form long chains. Proteins are what DNA is made from. The fact that all life has so many base pair sequences identical to ALL life proves that we all had a common lineage. All life on earth is more alike than unlike. Entropy tells us that this commonality in base pairs is not by chance at all.. It would be like rolling a dice with identical outcomes 100,000 times in a row. Just not going to happen anytime soon.
We all have common ancestors. Life was created here by completely understandable processes.
We can also thank the fact that we have "Near Perfect" reproduction. There are no life forms on the planet that procreates through perfect reproduction. If any did all members of a species would be genetically identical.. very bad from a survival standpoint. Any one virus or bacterium could wipe the whole civilization out. No diversity means no protection from extinction. This in a way is happening to the wild cheetahs in Africa. Inbreeding has made them almost all identical genetically. Great worry exists in there imminent extinction.
This imperfect reproduction that DNA replication affords is a blessing and curse. This slight randomness creates all the diversity you observe around you. Some randomness (mutations) just by complete chance are more effective to survival in the environment, others are not. The mutations that are beneficial provides a survival advantage that the other life forms do not have. If tragedy strikes (randomness again) the life forms with the advantage survive while the life forms without the advantageous mutation perish. The survivors pass on the advantage to there offspring.. keeping the positive traits in the gene pool.. This process of completely random reproduction goes on and on influenced by environmental factors.. There are winners (with an advantage) and losers (without advantage). The winners survive to reproduce because there mutation provides survival advantage. There is inevitably many more losers than winners in the game of life.
Since life started in this manner that is why we all have common DNA.. we are the lucky by product of countless mutations, some were good, most were not advantageous to life at all. They have long since disappeared. Everything life form you see are winners in this long lottery of life.
Life is not magical or divine. Just an effect of natural processes. Our planet was forged inside a star. All the heavy elements that make up our planet and ourselves was once blown into space from an ancient supernovae. Over time gravitational forces have created our solar system from the debris. Our planet is star stuff.. we are star stuff. As you read this realize you are the Universe trying to understand itself.
Since you said Evolution is Fact, I feel the need to point out some possible holes in your arguments, or point out how your arguments can be used by the other side.
Saying something is fact is unscientific. Gravity is a theory. The fact that we breath in oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide is a theory, both are really good theories, but all are still theories. They just have stood up to scrutiny for a very long time. but all may need to be modified if new data is presented.
Now,
Saying something is fact is unscientific. Gravity is a theory. The fact that we breath in oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide is a theory, both are really good theories, but all are still theories. They just have stood up to scrutiny for a very long time. but all may need to be modified if new data is presented.
Now,
QUOTE
So amino acids are easily created by completely natural processes. Turns out that life is based on only 20 of these acids, with a left handed symmetry (kirality). Turns out that as soon as the earth was ready life started to form.. it did not wait very long.
Amino Acids were also made with right handed symmetry. the fact that all life uses left handed AAs could be argued to be the work of a creator. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So amino acids are easily created by completely natural processes. Turns out that life is based on only 20 of these acids, with a left handed symmetry (kirality). Turns out that as soon as the earth was ready life started to form.. it did not wait very long. |
Amino Acids were also made with right handed symmetry. the fact that all life uses left handed AAs could be argued to be the work of a creator.
The Jump from amino acids to proteins took considerably longer. A protein is a series of amino acids that line up conga style to form long chains. Proteins are what DNA is made from.
I thought DNA was made from nucleotides. DNA is used to make protiens. but it's not made of Protien. DNA is made from nucleotides, Protein is made from Amino Acids. the DNA tells the Amino Acids how to line up.
One could argue that an intelligent creator. much like a computer programmer would use the parts that work from other animals to make new animals adding more and more complexity to working models and removing the bits that didn't work. Much like evoluition seems to do. it only makes sense that there would be similarities.
However convergent Evolution seems to disprove this. Where similar traits such as Flying or the shape of Sharks and dolphins are reached thru several different paths. Insects, Bats, Birds and early dinosaurs all flew but used different means to do so. it would seem that an intelligent creator wouldn't re invent the wheel so many times.
One could argue that an intelligent creator. much like a computer programmer would use the parts that work from other animals to make new animals adding more and more complexity to working models and removing the bits that didn't work. Much like evoluition seems to do. it only makes sense that there would be similarities.
However convergent Evolution seems to disprove this. Where similar traits such as Flying or the shape of Sharks and dolphins are reached thru several different paths. Insects, Bats, Birds and early dinosaurs all flew but used different means to do so. it would seem that an intelligent creator wouldn't re invent the wheel so many times.
We can also thank the fact that we have "Near Perfect" reproduction. There are no life forms on the planet that procreates through perfect reproduction. If any did all members of a species would be genetically identical.. very bad from a survival standpoint.
that seems like something an intelligent creator would build in to allow his creations the best chance of extend survival. unless he were to make the world a perfect place with out adversary. He must have added that after Adam and eve were thrown out of the garden.
Or we are the end product of a very clever bio chemist. One really can't tell the difference based on the facts you have presented.
of course I do. I'm just pointing out that the evidence presented in the above post does not point solely to one answer. A scientest has to keep an open mind and literally think outside the box. if you start with the answer and try to make things fit it's bad science. so you should only claim things you can back up with evidence. I firmly beleive in evolution, but I also look at the other side. which only makes me doubt the other side more. I thought I made that fairly obvious.
You however are misstating several things. in Science you never call something a fact. it's a theory that is supported by observation and experiment. we never claim to know it all or have it all figured out. every time we try we find something new we didn't know before and we have to eat our words. a Bacteria isn't a real good example for evolution since they reproduce asexually. Insects might be better. roaches make a good example since Raid has to come out with a new formula every few years or so. However just because one or two roaches happen to be immune to the stuff and soon everything in the area is immune to it as well (because they are all decended from the surviving roaches) they are not a new species until they can no longer mate with the old roaches. it's adaptation but I don't know if you can call it evolution. and Influenza is caused by a virus. antibiotics only kill off bacteria. so the miss use of antibiotics has nothing to do with the mutations of the influenza virus. but I get your point.
of course I do. I'm just pointing out that the evidence presented in the above post does not point solely to one answer. A scientest has to keep an open mind and literally think outside the box. if you start with the answer and try to make things fit it's bad science. so you should only claim things you can back up with evidence. I firmly beleive in evolution, but I also look at the other side. which only makes me doubt the other side more. I thought I made that fairly obvious.
You however are misstating several things. in Science you never call something a fact. it's a theory that is supported by observation and experiment. we never claim to know it all or have it all figured out. every time we try we find something new we didn't know before and we have to eat our words. a Bacteria isn't a real good example for evolution since they reproduce asexually. Insects might be better. roaches make a good example since Raid has to come out with a new formula every few years or so. However just because one or two roaches happen to be immune to the stuff and soon everything in the area is immune to it as well (because they are all decended from the surviving roaches) they are not a new species until they can no longer mate with the old roaches. it's adaptation but I don't know if you can call it evolution. and Influenza is caused by a virus. antibiotics only kill off bacteria. so the miss use of antibiotics has nothing to do with the mutations of the influenza virus. but I get your point.
Evolution and God are in complete conflict. You can not believe in God and believe in evolution.
again you are wrong. I do beleive in a god, and I do beleive in evolution. I do not however beleive in Genesis, or any other god that is currently treated like a despotic dictator by the major religions. There's a big difference in beleiving in god and beleiving everything you read in the bible. And to be honest with you, not beleiving in a god is really unscientific since there is no way to Disprove God. if you can't disprove it then you really can't say that it doesn't exist. there's nothing in any of the laws of physics that says there can't be a god.
Why is one religions view of creaton the only correct one?
Well, well, well
This is a very interesting conversation. I have been a person to convers about all of this. So as far as this goes the quote may have been worded wrongly. All of you should get a grip. It was a misunderstanding in regards to the wording. We all know that religion is factor in most evil doing.
Take this as a hit or miss. I dont care. To say that religion is the root - NO but it sometimes is the cause. This is all that was meant by this quote.
well we can make some estimates.
we know how big the world is. we know the radius of the planet. let's just call it 1 Radii for now to keep the math simple. so we know the surface of the earth is 4Pi radiis (surface area of a sphere = 4 pi R^2)
so the ice shell would cover the entire globe and be a fixed distance from the surface. so here we have to guess. the highest mountain is about 5 miles high. and we'll assume that the shell is much higer than the highest mountain. so let's just say 10 miles up. that puts it about about 52,000 feet. or should we put it at the boundary of space and the atmosphere, about 100,000 feet? lets to the latter.
so, since Google switched to metic I guess I'll do the same. the radius of the earth (average I assume) is 6,378.1 Km. ok, a little fact checking. according to the X-prize. space starts at 100 km. so we'll use that number, and we'll just forget the ones I pulled out of my but. so. let's put our shell at 6500km ( I like round numbers) so the surface area will be. 530,929,158 square Km. or 530, 929,158,000 square meters. or simply 5.3 X 10^11 sqaure meters.
Just for simplicity's sake, let just assume that the shell was 1 meter thick. I think it would probably have to be thicker if we are saying that it was holding in a higher pressure atmosphere. and if it wasn't being blown apart by this magnetic field that was pushing on it. that gives us 5.3 x 10 ^11 cubic meters of Ice.
so, how much water is in a square meter of ice? I'll let someone else handle this question. since I can't seem to find an answer.
Plus. it's hard to say how thick the ice would have to be in order to be able to exist for a very long time. at least 1000 years right? Adam was dead before the flood right?
on another site I found out that there are 326 millon cubic miles of water on the earth.
so miles to meters: 1609 meters to 1 mile. 524, 534 meters to 326 miles
524,534,000,000 meters to 326 million cubic miles. or about 5.3 x 10^11 cubic meters.
that's kind of interesting how that works out. but the result seems to show that to make a shield of just 1 meter thick, would require every drop of water on the planet.
I'm still pretty certain that a structulal anaylse from a qualified engineer would have problems with such a structure. though I could be wrong.
well we can make some estimates.
we know how big the world is. we know the radius of the planet. let's just call it 1 Radii for now to keep the math simple. so we know the surface of the earth is 4Pi radiis (surface area of a sphere = 4 pi R^2)
so the ice shell would cover the entire globe and be a fixed distance from the surface. so here we have to guess. the highest mountain is about 5 miles high. and we'll assume that the shell is much higer than the highest mountain. so let's just say 10 miles up. that puts it about about 52,000 feet. or should we put it at the boundary of space and the atmosphere, about 100,000 feet? lets to the latter.
so, since Google switched to metic I guess I'll do the same. the radius of the earth (average I assume) is 6,378.1 Km. ok, a little fact checking. according to the X-prize. space starts at 100 km. so we'll use that number, and we'll just forget the ones I pulled out of my but. so. let's put our shell at 6500km ( I like round numbers) so the surface area will be. 530,929,158 square Km. or 530, 929,158,000 square meters. or simply 5.3 X 10^11 sqaure meters.
Just for simplicity's sake, let just assume that the shell was 1 meter thick. I think it would probably have to be thicker if we are saying that it was holding in a higher pressure atmosphere. and if it wasn't being blown apart by this magnetic field that was pushing on it. that gives us 5.3 x 10 ^11 cubic meters of Ice.
so, how much water is in a square meter of ice? I'll let someone else handle this question. since I can't seem to find an answer.
Plus. it's hard to say how thick the ice would have to be in order to be able to exist for a very long time. at least 1000 years right? Adam was dead before the flood right?
on another site I found out that there are 326 millon cubic miles of water on the earth.
so miles to meters: 1609 meters to 1 mile. 524, 534 meters to 326 miles
524,534,000,000 meters to 326 million cubic miles. or about 5.3 x 10^11 cubic meters.
that's kind of interesting how that works out. but the result seems to show that to make a shield of just 1 meter thick, would require every drop of water on the planet.
I'm still pretty certain that a structulal anaylse from a qualified engineer would have problems with such a structure. though I could be wrong.
It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.
but isn't this evolution? lets say a giant asteroid hit the earth and left a big crater in the gulf of mexico. and lets say that that would kill off a lot of dinosaurs. and the ones left, thru breeding and natrual selection would become more like the species of reptiles and birds that we see today.
Occam's Razor says to accept the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
we already got you to accept that old species can turn into new ones over time thru breeding. now all we have to do is get you to loose the global flood and you're there!
we're not asking you to abandon God, we're simply saying that Genisis is probably more metaphor than history, and that this whole thing could happen with minimal to no guidance.
If we look at the Odds of evolution they are not as far out as creationist like to quote.
If you have a billion chances for something to happen, a million to one chance is pretty common. Once DNA was formed and somehow captured in a membrane and started dividing, there have been trillions of generations Probably more actually. and once you start adding in environmental pressures, then things become even more likely. it's not as they say the tornado flying thru the junk yard.
on the other hand, this guy in about 20 years discovered every meaningful artifact fromt the bible, even the ones that shouldn't exist anymore.
what's more likly? that this guy really found all this stuff when so many others have failed even though none of them have been confirmed by any other credible source? or that he was a con man looking to make a buck?
Guest_curious, if the ice was free from imperfections, it would be completely transparent, and the sunlight would not heat it at all.
I nominate this for the dumbest statement made.....EVAR!!
And just to test...I placed some [perfect] ice cubes in the sun.
Imagine my surprise when, just like the1physisct says, they didn't melt. Huh...whaddupwitdat!
That's when I realized that I was just dreaming....haha...silly me.
So, then I really put some [perfect] ice cubes in the sun. When I went in to get my coffee and came back, they weren't there. Maybe god stole them.
Matt, are you really telling me that you can believe in the odds of evolution happening, but not that one guy finds a few things?
Yup, I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to tell you.
Yup, I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to tell you.
So I see no reason to belittle or discredit Mr. Wyatt when what he found is tangible and observable.
Yes, but these people do. http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html
(look (AND READ) the numerous articles posted at the bottom)
Yes, I know that this link has been posted before, but if the1physicist puts forth even 1 iota of the effort in reading this as he puts into postulating absurdities then maybe links like this wouldn't HAVE TO BE REGURGITATED!!
The reason they haven't been found yet is that, as you always say, upwards of 99% of religious people are complete dumb***es.
Ok, that's ONE right answer for you.....but don't let that become a habit
The Jump from amino acids to proteins took considerably longer. A protein is a series of amino acids that line up conga style to form long chains. Proteins are what DNA is made from.
I thought DNA was made from nucleotides. DNA is used to make protiens. but it's not made of Protien. DNA is made from nucleotides, Protein is made from Amino Acids. the DNA tells the Amino Acids how to line up.
QUOTE
The fact that all life has so many base pair sequences identical to ALL life proves that we all had a common lineage. All life on earth is more alike than unlike. Entropy tells us that this commonality in base pairs is not by chance at all.. It would be like rolling a dice with identical outcomes 100,000 times in a row. Just not going to happen anytime soon.
One could argue that an intelligent creator. much like a computer programmer would use the parts that work from other animals to make new animals adding more and more complexity to working models and removing the bits that didn't work. Much like evoluition seems to do. it only makes sense that there would be similarities.
However convergent Evolution seems to disprove this. Where similar traits such as Flying or the shape of Sharks and dolphins are reached thru several different paths. Insects, Bats, Birds and early dinosaurs all flew but used different means to do so. it would seem that an intelligent creator wouldn't re invent the wheel so many times.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that all life has so many base pair sequences identical to ALL life proves that we all had a common lineage. All life on earth is more alike than unlike. Entropy tells us that this commonality in base pairs is not by chance at all.. It would be like rolling a dice with identical outcomes 100,000 times in a row. Just not going to happen anytime soon. |
One could argue that an intelligent creator. much like a computer programmer would use the parts that work from other animals to make new animals adding more and more complexity to working models and removing the bits that didn't work. Much like evoluition seems to do. it only makes sense that there would be similarities.
However convergent Evolution seems to disprove this. Where similar traits such as Flying or the shape of Sharks and dolphins are reached thru several different paths. Insects, Bats, Birds and early dinosaurs all flew but used different means to do so. it would seem that an intelligent creator wouldn't re invent the wheel so many times.
We can also thank the fact that we have "Near Perfect" reproduction. There are no life forms on the planet that procreates through perfect reproduction. If any did all members of a species would be genetically identical.. very bad from a survival standpoint.
that seems like something an intelligent creator would build in to allow his creations the best chance of extend survival. unless he were to make the world a perfect place with out adversary. He must have added that after Adam and eve were thrown out of the garden.
QUOTE
Since life started in this manner that is why we all have common DNA.. we are the lucky by product of countless mutations, some were good, most were not advantageous to life at all. They have long since disappeared. Everything life form you see are winners in this long lottery of life.
Or we are the end product of a very clever bio chemist. One really can't tell the difference based on the facts you have presented.
Matt
What are your basing your views on. I can question everything if I was going on what I want to believe as opposed to fact. Religion is based on absolutely no fact at all. It is a mutual admiration society. Your making arguments based on metaphors. Do you realize that? Any answer that begins with .. "He might have", "He could have".. has actually zero merit. Show me something to back yourself up. Pointing to a book is not good enough. What I have mentioned in my previous post is FACTS. You know those things that the bible is lacking.
Evolution is a fact of existence.. if you need an example that is real life. Think of the situation of antibiotics. Why do you think doctors always advised to take the whole round of antibiotics and not just stop taking it when you feel better? Evolution is the answer... Antibiotics kills organisms and other phage like organisms. If you do not take your whole round of antibiotics you kill the weak organisms and leave the more virulent ones alive. The weak ones are killed and all you are left with is the tough or more resistant strains. Now the more virulent strains reproduce like all life does... You now have a colony that is more resistant because all the survivors were the stronger variety. You forced evolution. If this happens enough times you will get a strain that is completely resistant to antibiotics. That is what is happening to influenza and many other diseases. You could replace "antibiotics" with "Environment" in the previous example.
That is happening around you all the time..FACT ask any doctor.
Evolution and God are in complete conflict. You can not believe in God and believe in evolution. Some people make incoherent arguments that blend both.. You can not say that god created Adam and Eve and then let their offspring to evolve. Firstly, it is impossible to create a civilization from just 2 people. 2 people do not have the genetic diversity to make a civilization.. That is a FACT..just consult a geneticist.
Same reason as to why the famous Ark is completely BS also.. 2 animals cannot breed a viable population.. Let alone the logic of asking how did he get to the south pole to pickup the penguins, and then go down to the North pole for the polar bears... Completely ridiculous.
Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences. There is literally hundreds of different religions all claiming to be the one true religion. Guess what, if one is wrong...All is wrong. If there was a truly omnipotent being controlling and guiding everything would there not just be 1 religion.
God does not exist or at least he is really shy. No one has ever seen him/her. Nobody has seen any of the hundreds of deities that people follow. They only exist in the hopes and dreams of there believers. Just keep in mind that what we are discussing is the real world not a metaphoric version that people hold dear.
What are your basing your views on. I can question everything if I was going on what I want to believe as opposed to fact. Religion is based on absolutely no fact at all. It is a mutual admiration society. Your making arguments based on metaphors. Do you realize that? Any answer that begins with .. "He might have", "He could have".. has actually zero merit. Show me something to back yourself up. Pointing to a book is not good enough. What I have mentioned in my previous post is FACTS. You know those things that the bible is lacking.
Evolution is a fact of existence.. if you need an example that is real life. Think of the situation of antibiotics. Why do you think doctors always advised to take the whole round of antibiotics and not just stop taking it when you feel better? Evolution is the answer... Antibiotics kills organisms and other phage like organisms. If you do not take your whole round of antibiotics you kill the weak organisms and leave the more virulent ones alive. The weak ones are killed and all you are left with is the tough or more resistant strains. Now the more virulent strains reproduce like all life does... You now have a colony that is more resistant because all the survivors were the stronger variety. You forced evolution. If this happens enough times you will get a strain that is completely resistant to antibiotics. That is what is happening to influenza and many other diseases. You could replace "antibiotics" with "Environment" in the previous example.
That is happening around you all the time..FACT ask any doctor.
Evolution and God are in complete conflict. You can not believe in God and believe in evolution. Some people make incoherent arguments that blend both.. You can not say that god created Adam and Eve and then let their offspring to evolve. Firstly, it is impossible to create a civilization from just 2 people. 2 people do not have the genetic diversity to make a civilization.. That is a FACT..just consult a geneticist.
Same reason as to why the famous Ark is completely BS also.. 2 animals cannot breed a viable population.. Let alone the logic of asking how did he get to the south pole to pickup the penguins, and then go down to the North pole for the polar bears... Completely ridiculous.
Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences. There is literally hundreds of different religions all claiming to be the one true religion. Guess what, if one is wrong...All is wrong. If there was a truly omnipotent being controlling and guiding everything would there not just be 1 religion.
God does not exist or at least he is really shy. No one has ever seen him/her. Nobody has seen any of the hundreds of deities that people follow. They only exist in the hopes and dreams of there believers. Just keep in mind that what we are discussing is the real world not a metaphoric version that people hold dear.
QUOTE
Your making arguments based on metaphors. Do you realize that?
of course I do. I'm just pointing out that the evidence presented in the above post does not point solely to one answer. A scientest has to keep an open mind and literally think outside the box. if you start with the answer and try to make things fit it's bad science. so you should only claim things you can back up with evidence. I firmly beleive in evolution, but I also look at the other side. which only makes me doubt the other side more. I thought I made that fairly obvious.
You however are misstating several things. in Science you never call something a fact. it's a theory that is supported by observation and experiment. we never claim to know it all or have it all figured out. every time we try we find something new we didn't know before and we have to eat our words. a Bacteria isn't a real good example for evolution since they reproduce asexually. Insects might be better. roaches make a good example since Raid has to come out with a new formula every few years or so. However just because one or two roaches happen to be immune to the stuff and soon everything in the area is immune to it as well (because they are all decended from the surviving roaches) they are not a new species until they can no longer mate with the old roaches. it's adaptation but I don't know if you can call it evolution. and Influenza is caused by a virus. antibiotics only kill off bacteria. so the miss use of antibiotics has nothing to do with the mutations of the influenza virus. but I get your point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your making arguments based on metaphors. Do you realize that? |
of course I do. I'm just pointing out that the evidence presented in the above post does not point solely to one answer. A scientest has to keep an open mind and literally think outside the box. if you start with the answer and try to make things fit it's bad science. so you should only claim things you can back up with evidence. I firmly beleive in evolution, but I also look at the other side. which only makes me doubt the other side more. I thought I made that fairly obvious.
You however are misstating several things. in Science you never call something a fact. it's a theory that is supported by observation and experiment. we never claim to know it all or have it all figured out. every time we try we find something new we didn't know before and we have to eat our words. a Bacteria isn't a real good example for evolution since they reproduce asexually. Insects might be better. roaches make a good example since Raid has to come out with a new formula every few years or so. However just because one or two roaches happen to be immune to the stuff and soon everything in the area is immune to it as well (because they are all decended from the surviving roaches) they are not a new species until they can no longer mate with the old roaches. it's adaptation but I don't know if you can call it evolution. and Influenza is caused by a virus. antibiotics only kill off bacteria. so the miss use of antibiotics has nothing to do with the mutations of the influenza virus. but I get your point.
Evolution and God are in complete conflict. You can not believe in God and believe in evolution.
again you are wrong. I do beleive in a god, and I do beleive in evolution. I do not however beleive in Genesis, or any other god that is currently treated like a despotic dictator by the major religions. There's a big difference in beleiving in god and beleiving everything you read in the bible. And to be honest with you, not beleiving in a god is really unscientific since there is no way to Disprove God. if you can't disprove it then you really can't say that it doesn't exist. there's nothing in any of the laws of physics that says there can't be a god.
QUOTE
Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences.
again I'm going to disagree with you. Humanity is the root of all evil. Religion is the excuse. Evil men use religion to control the ignorant masses and fullfill their selfish desires for wealth and power. it's not religion that corrupts them. it's arogance and greed. they use religion to corrupt others. but the root is Human. and WWII wasn't fought over religion it was fought over land. and at the root of all the wars going on today. it's not religion. it's money, power and influence. religion is just the excuse. the means to get the foot soliders to blow them selves up and put themselves in harms way while those who benifit from their sacrifice are safe. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences. |
again I'm going to disagree with you. Humanity is the root of all evil. Religion is the excuse. Evil men use religion to control the ignorant masses and fullfill their selfish desires for wealth and power. it's not religion that corrupts them. it's arogance and greed. they use religion to corrupt others. but the root is Human. and WWII wasn't fought over religion it was fought over land. and at the root of all the wars going on today. it's not religion. it's money, power and influence. religion is just the excuse. the means to get the foot soliders to blow them selves up and put themselves in harms way while those who benifit from their sacrifice are safe.
No one has ever seen him/her. Nobody has seen any of the hundreds of deities that people follow. They only exist in the hopes and dreams of there believers
No one has ever seen him/her. Nobody has seen any of the hundreds of deities that people follow. They only exist in the hopes and dreams of there believers
Many people claim to have seen him/her/them. can we really prove that they didn't?
I agree with what you are thinking. I'm just pointing out flaws in your arguments. Flaws that any decent creationist can exploit and run with. and possibly even use to convince you of the opposite. (though probably not) There is plenty of really good evidence for evolution that really can't be disputed. there are predictions that the theory created that were later proved by observation and experiment. remember when darwin came up with this we knew nothing of DNA and genetics. only later did we discover these, yet Darwin predicted that things such as DNA had to exist. The theory of Intelligent design doesn't predict anything that can be verified by experiment. It attempts to make a legal case for itself instead of a scientific case. siting circumstancial evidence and pointing out questions that still remain unproven in evolution. though anyone who really looks hard at both sides with an open mind really can't come back and say that there has to be a god.
and even if they did, God still has to come from somewhere. there still has to be a moment that something was created from nothing. If people have so much trouble beleving that something as ordinary as the universe could be created from nothing, why are they so willing accept that something as fantasic as an all knowing all powerful being can just pop out of no where?
I agree with what you are thinking. I'm just pointing out flaws in your arguments. Flaws that any decent creationist can exploit and run with. and possibly even use to convince you of the opposite. (though probably not) There is plenty of really good evidence for evolution that really can't be disputed. there are predictions that the theory created that were later proved by observation and experiment. remember when darwin came up with this we knew nothing of DNA and genetics. only later did we discover these, yet Darwin predicted that things such as DNA had to exist. The theory of Intelligent design doesn't predict anything that can be verified by experiment. It attempts to make a legal case for itself instead of a scientific case. siting circumstancial evidence and pointing out questions that still remain unproven in evolution. though anyone who really looks hard at both sides with an open mind really can't come back and say that there has to be a god.
and even if they did, God still has to come from somewhere. there still has to be a moment that something was created from nothing. If people have so much trouble beleving that something as ordinary as the universe could be created from nothing, why are they so willing accept that something as fantasic as an all knowing all powerful being can just pop out of no where?
First, just for Biscuit, I will explain dinosuars. Did you know all reptiles never stop growing? So if everything before the flood (assuming it happened, that is) lived to be 900ish years old, what would reptiles look like? A dinosaur. Dinosaurs are simply jumbo lizards, and if you could keep a lizard alive long enough today, you would get the same thing.
Now as to Guest_curios's wanting to know about the water, I can explain. I believe that the layer of ice above the earth was actually rather thick. As such, it could partially support its own weight just because of the curvature of the earth. However, I think how most of its weight was supported by air pressure. Did you know that if you double the air pressure, the plasma in our blood becomes oxygen saturated? This is important because it was one of the reasons people lived so long back then. Therefore, I would conjecture that the weight of the ice layer increased the atmospheric pressure to support its weight. (This of course, necessitates that it was already created that way) As to where it went, well when the comet that I believe caused the flood hit, it obviously would have cracked the ice layer, releasing the air pressure and hence the primary mode of support. So all the water is still in our oceans. After the flood, where we have oceans now simply sank down, revealing land.
Now as to Guest_curios's wanting to know about the water, I can explain. I believe that the layer of ice above the earth was actually rather thick. As such, it could partially support its own weight just because of the curvature of the earth. However, I think how most of its weight was supported by air pressure. Did you know that if you double the air pressure, the plasma in our blood becomes oxygen saturated? This is important because it was one of the reasons people lived so long back then. Therefore, I would conjecture that the weight of the ice layer increased the atmospheric pressure to support its weight. (This of course, necessitates that it was already created that way) As to where it went, well when the comet that I believe caused the flood hit, it obviously would have cracked the ice layer, releasing the air pressure and hence the primary mode of support. So all the water is still in our oceans. After the flood, where we have oceans now simply sank down, revealing land.
By the way, I don't like how everyone lumps religion unto one giant pot. Typically this is so they can shut down one religion and imply that all religions are wrong. Well, there are many religions that say if you don't believe in their specific religion, then you are going to hell. Clearly, someone is wrong. Along this line, someone made the comment that religion said the world is flat. Actually, that was the Roman Catholics, (which, btw, is definitely NOT christianity) and if you read the bible, it clearly says in this one verse that the world is round. (I forget where, but I can possibly look it up if needed)
QUOTE
Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences.
I'm going to have to agree with matt on this one. I think religion gets blamed for a lot of crap, simpy because some wacko(s) justifies his insane actions/beliefs with "God told me to do it." I mean, how are you supposed to argue against that? There's really no way to disprove it, therefore it's the ultimate justification.
I believe that evolution is controlled by creation to eventually bring God back to power to keep everything balanced.
I'd like to hear more about this Ice Sheild.
I assume it was created that way so we don't have to worry about how it formed.
can we also assume that this ice had the same properties of Ice today?
This provides a hypothesis that can be tested to some degree.
Since we know the properties of Ice, we can calculate how big this ice shell was, how much ice was in it and thusly how much water was in it. how much it weighed, how thick it had to be in order to support its own weight, How much sunlight could have gotten thru. we can balance it's weight with the air pressure from the planet. I imagine we could actually discover quite a bit about it.
is this your own theory, or has this been put foward by other researchers? I would hope that if this was an established theory that most of these calcuations have already been made. I probably could find the formuals to find all of these values, but frankly I'm really not willing to.
As for the Dinosaurs just being really big reptiles. I must say that this is simply ludicris. but if you can find a qualified palentologist to back you up. I won't laugh directly in your face.
Just a couple of holes in your theory.
T-rex had a wish bone like a turkey. no reptile alive today has such a thing. so do birds also continue to grow forever?
Turtles live to be well over 100 years old. but do not get any bigger than a few feet tall. and after a while they grow very slowly. if they lived to be 900. they still would not get to dino size.
there are many more species of dinosaur identified than that are living reptiles today, and most of them really don't look like big versions of todays reptiles.
there's many more I'm sure, I came up with those off the top of my head and I really don't even know that much about dinosaurs. I'm sure that your hypothesis would not be able to stand up to even the lowest level of peer review.
I assume it was created that way so we don't have to worry about how it formed.
can we also assume that this ice had the same properties of Ice today?
This provides a hypothesis that can be tested to some degree.
Since we know the properties of Ice, we can calculate how big this ice shell was, how much ice was in it and thusly how much water was in it. how much it weighed, how thick it had to be in order to support its own weight, How much sunlight could have gotten thru. we can balance it's weight with the air pressure from the planet. I imagine we could actually discover quite a bit about it.
is this your own theory, or has this been put foward by other researchers? I would hope that if this was an established theory that most of these calcuations have already been made. I probably could find the formuals to find all of these values, but frankly I'm really not willing to.
As for the Dinosaurs just being really big reptiles. I must say that this is simply ludicris. but if you can find a qualified palentologist to back you up. I won't laugh directly in your face.
Just a couple of holes in your theory.
T-rex had a wish bone like a turkey. no reptile alive today has such a thing. so do birds also continue to grow forever?
Turtles live to be well over 100 years old. but do not get any bigger than a few feet tall. and after a while they grow very slowly. if they lived to be 900. they still would not get to dino size.
there are many more species of dinosaur identified than that are living reptiles today, and most of them really don't look like big versions of todays reptiles.
there's many more I'm sure, I came up with those off the top of my head and I really don't even know that much about dinosaurs. I'm sure that your hypothesis would not be able to stand up to even the lowest level of peer review.
Ive been thinking, you know what would be really cool? If we could get some actual physics professors in here instead of just 15 year olds. This could actually be an intelligent conversation. It would probably very quickly slide to the evolutionist side, but it would at least be intelligent.
NeoSlovakia
PS. Im not talking to everyone here, just the obvious stupid people
NeoSlovakia
PS. Im not talking to everyone here, just the obvious stupid people
Why is one religions view of creaton the only correct one?
QUOTE (the1physicist+Dec 15 2004, 03:55 AM)
QUOTE
Religion is the root of all evil.. just look around the world.. All wars are based on religious differences.
Well, well, well
This is a very interesting conversation. I have been a person to convers about all of this. So as far as this goes the quote may have been worded wrongly. All of you should get a grip. It was a misunderstanding in regards to the wording. We all know that religion is factor in most evil doing.
Take this as a hit or miss. I dont care. To say that religion is the root - NO but it sometimes is the cause. This is all that was meant by this quote.
I really don't even think it's the cause.
Again. the cause is that someone wants something that someone else has. it's pretty simple. War more often than not is large scale larceny, or the defence against such acts.
Hilter wanted Europe, and more to the point the world. so he raised an army and took it. The crusaders wanted the holy land. The Muslims wanted power over all as well so they invaded everywhere, same with the huns, the communists, everyone. Most of it comes down to the simple fact that someone, or some small group of peopel decide that the world would be a much better place if they were in charge and if everyone did things their way.
in the end it's all arrogence. Hitler didn't beleive himself to be evil. neither did napoleon, nor does Saddam or Bin Laden. or the IRA, or the serbs, or the sudanese. Nor does the US. They all beleive they are doing the right thing and that the world will be a better place when their work is done.
Again. the cause is that someone wants something that someone else has. it's pretty simple. War more often than not is large scale larceny, or the defence against such acts.
Hilter wanted Europe, and more to the point the world. so he raised an army and took it. The crusaders wanted the holy land. The Muslims wanted power over all as well so they invaded everywhere, same with the huns, the communists, everyone. Most of it comes down to the simple fact that someone, or some small group of peopel decide that the world would be a much better place if they were in charge and if everyone did things their way.
in the end it's all arrogence. Hitler didn't beleive himself to be evil. neither did napoleon, nor does Saddam or Bin Laden. or the IRA, or the serbs, or the sudanese. Nor does the US. They all beleive they are doing the right thing and that the world will be a better place when their work is done.
Matt, I have no reason to believe ice had different properties back then, so I agree that the 'Ice Shield' theory could be tested. However, because the water came from four different sources, I'm not sure there would be a way of differentiate exactly how much came from each source, which would make testing it difficult. Also, it really isn't anyone's theory in particular, so I don't know if those calculations have been done. I'm guessing not, simply because there is no way (that I can think of) to determine how much water to use in the calculations.
As to your comments on dinosaurs, I agree, today we do not have the same species. It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.
As to your comments on dinosaurs, I agree, today we do not have the same species. It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.
Creation is a belief that you have grown up to believe. If you choose to believe in this then so be it. BUT...................................................you should consider the fact that life as it is, was created by evolution. Think about it. With out man there would be no cures for diseases, no science to work with.....nothing that you use today that was man made.
This is something that I feel is very important to this conservation because this is a very good explaination of evolution is the only thing and not creation.
Can any prove that GOD is really there - no
Can any prove that GOD is really not there - no
So that theory is out the door. This topic cannot be explained, so let's drop it.
The Bible - my favorite book - whatever
This book is sooooo full of SH*T that it is not even funny. Again it is all hypothetical. Taking what is said in there for real is silly. Nothing in the book could actually happen. The parting to the red sea. First of all it was not the RED sea but the REED sea. Which at the time of season (according to the bible) was all marsh land and weeds. So the parting of it was only to part the weeds to walk through it.
The idea of a burning bush that did not burn and apperently is still there is fake. I do understand and a bush is not like a tree, a bush will grow from its roots over and over again, but to have a bush burn and still be there is impossible.
Moses was an egyptian prince that prayed and praised to a SUN GOD. Some followers from egypt did that same. Moses then ran away from the farrow Ramesssee because of their laws of slavery. Moses became a shepard and married and had children. Then came the burning bush.
Think about it, before he left he was already praising A god. Not THE god but A god. Supposely he was GOD's man to speak to the world about HIM.
Now before you go all crazy with comments, listen to this...............................
If he was alreay praising A god ( according to scriptures in egypt, this is what I am basing this from ) and had followers praising with him. Then left and then returned to free his followers don't you think that those followers would continue to praise that SUN god. But now because Moses is not an egyptian prince any more but just a shepard the SUN god would not fit his lifestyle. Something needed to be changed to fit the image. So now we have GOD.
Again before you all go crazy just really take a min and think about it. Please.
I am not a sientist or physics person, this is just a stright opinion. Take it as you will.
Religion is something that someone will use and hold on to for life. This is part of them and who they are. If you try to take that away by proof of science or evolution a part of them is dead. I have done this to someone that believes very much in GOD, Religion and so on, I only explained the science of it and ask them to really really think about all of the possibilities that did not happen or could not happen. You should have seen their face. It was like a piece of them totally died.
Now they understand and respect what people like me have to say about evolution.
Many people have their opinions but science is proof and religion is fake
This is something that I feel is very important to this conservation because this is a very good explaination of evolution is the only thing and not creation.
Can any prove that GOD is really there - no
Can any prove that GOD is really not there - no
So that theory is out the door. This topic cannot be explained, so let's drop it.
The Bible - my favorite book - whatever
This book is sooooo full of SH*T that it is not even funny. Again it is all hypothetical. Taking what is said in there for real is silly. Nothing in the book could actually happen. The parting to the red sea. First of all it was not the RED sea but the REED sea. Which at the time of season (according to the bible) was all marsh land and weeds. So the parting of it was only to part the weeds to walk through it.
The idea of a burning bush that did not burn and apperently is still there is fake. I do understand and a bush is not like a tree, a bush will grow from its roots over and over again, but to have a bush burn and still be there is impossible.
Moses was an egyptian prince that prayed and praised to a SUN GOD. Some followers from egypt did that same. Moses then ran away from the farrow Ramesssee because of their laws of slavery. Moses became a shepard and married and had children. Then came the burning bush.
Think about it, before he left he was already praising A god. Not THE god but A god. Supposely he was GOD's man to speak to the world about HIM.
Now before you go all crazy with comments, listen to this...............................
If he was alreay praising A god ( according to scriptures in egypt, this is what I am basing this from ) and had followers praising with him. Then left and then returned to free his followers don't you think that those followers would continue to praise that SUN god. But now because Moses is not an egyptian prince any more but just a shepard the SUN god would not fit his lifestyle. Something needed to be changed to fit the image. So now we have GOD.
Again before you all go crazy just really take a min and think about it. Please.
I am not a sientist or physics person, this is just a stright opinion. Take it as you will.
Religion is something that someone will use and hold on to for life. This is part of them and who they are. If you try to take that away by proof of science or evolution a part of them is dead. I have done this to someone that believes very much in GOD, Religion and so on, I only explained the science of it and ask them to really really think about all of the possibilities that did not happen or could not happen. You should have seen their face. It was like a piece of them totally died.
Now they understand and respect what people like me have to say about evolution.
Many people have their opinions but science is proof and religion is fake
The fact that belief is all in the way you see it. Remember that you must have an open mind to take this all in.
This is just my opinion which is open to comments.
Creation is something that is written in a book that has no status of realitizim
This is why creation cannot be. Facts are a real thing. something that you can see and use to your advantage.
Theory of life or theory of man and creation is nothing but a theory - no FACTS
This is just my opinion which is open to comments.
Creation is something that is written in a book that has no status of realitizim
This is why creation cannot be. Facts are a real thing. something that you can see and use to your advantage.
Theory of life or theory of man and creation is nothing but a theory - no FACTS
QUOTE
I'm guessing not, simply because there is no way (that I can think of) to determine how much water to use in the calculations.
well we can make some estimates.
we know how big the world is. we know the radius of the planet. let's just call it 1 Radii for now to keep the math simple. so we know the surface of the earth is 4Pi radiis (surface area of a sphere = 4 pi R^2)
so the ice shell would cover the entire globe and be a fixed distance from the surface. so here we have to guess. the highest mountain is about 5 miles high. and we'll assume that the shell is much higer than the highest mountain. so let's just say 10 miles up. that puts it about about 52,000 feet. or should we put it at the boundary of space and the atmosphere, about 100,000 feet? lets to the latter.
so, since Google switched to metic I guess I'll do the same. the radius of the earth (average I assume) is 6,378.1 Km. ok, a little fact checking. according to the X-prize. space starts at 100 km. so we'll use that number, and we'll just forget the ones I pulled out of my but. so. let's put our shell at 6500km ( I like round numbers) so the surface area will be. 530,929,158 square Km. or 530, 929,158,000 square meters. or simply 5.3 X 10^11 sqaure meters.
Just for simplicity's sake, let just assume that the shell was 1 meter thick. I think it would probably have to be thicker if we are saying that it was holding in a higher pressure atmosphere. and if it wasn't being blown apart by this magnetic field that was pushing on it. that gives us 5.3 x 10 ^11 cubic meters of Ice.
so, how much water is in a square meter of ice? I'll let someone else handle this question. since I can't seem to find an answer.
Plus. it's hard to say how thick the ice would have to be in order to be able to exist for a very long time. at least 1000 years right? Adam was dead before the flood right?
on another site I found out that there are 326 millon cubic miles of water on the earth.
so miles to meters: 1609 meters to 1 mile. 524, 534 meters to 326 miles
524,534,000,000 meters to 326 million cubic miles. or about 5.3 x 10^11 cubic meters.
that's kind of interesting how that works out. but the result seems to show that to make a shield of just 1 meter thick, would require every drop of water on the planet.
I'm still pretty certain that a structulal anaylse from a qualified engineer would have problems with such a structure. though I could be wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm guessing not, simply because there is no way (that I can think of) to determine how much water to use in the calculations. |
well we can make some estimates.
we know how big the world is. we know the radius of the planet. let's just call it 1 Radii for now to keep the math simple. so we know the surface of the earth is 4Pi radiis (surface area of a sphere = 4 pi R^2)
so the ice shell would cover the entire globe and be a fixed distance from the surface. so here we have to guess. the highest mountain is about 5 miles high. and we'll assume that the shell is much higer than the highest mountain. so let's just say 10 miles up. that puts it about about 52,000 feet. or should we put it at the boundary of space and the atmosphere, about 100,000 feet? lets to the latter.
so, since Google switched to metic I guess I'll do the same. the radius of the earth (average I assume) is 6,378.1 Km. ok, a little fact checking. according to the X-prize. space starts at 100 km. so we'll use that number, and we'll just forget the ones I pulled out of my but. so. let's put our shell at 6500km ( I like round numbers) so the surface area will be. 530,929,158 square Km. or 530, 929,158,000 square meters. or simply 5.3 X 10^11 sqaure meters.
Just for simplicity's sake, let just assume that the shell was 1 meter thick. I think it would probably have to be thicker if we are saying that it was holding in a higher pressure atmosphere. and if it wasn't being blown apart by this magnetic field that was pushing on it. that gives us 5.3 x 10 ^11 cubic meters of Ice.
so, how much water is in a square meter of ice? I'll let someone else handle this question. since I can't seem to find an answer.
Plus. it's hard to say how thick the ice would have to be in order to be able to exist for a very long time. at least 1000 years right? Adam was dead before the flood right?
on another site I found out that there are 326 millon cubic miles of water on the earth.
so miles to meters: 1609 meters to 1 mile. 524, 534 meters to 326 miles
524,534,000,000 meters to 326 million cubic miles. or about 5.3 x 10^11 cubic meters.
that's kind of interesting how that works out. but the result seems to show that to make a shield of just 1 meter thick, would require every drop of water on the planet.
I'm still pretty certain that a structulal anaylse from a qualified engineer would have problems with such a structure. though I could be wrong.
It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.
but isn't this evolution? lets say a giant asteroid hit the earth and left a big crater in the gulf of mexico. and lets say that that would kill off a lot of dinosaurs. and the ones left, thru breeding and natrual selection would become more like the species of reptiles and birds that we see today.
Occam's Razor says to accept the theory that requires the fewest assumptions.
we already got you to accept that old species can turn into new ones over time thru breeding. now all we have to do is get you to loose the global flood and you're there!
we're not asking you to abandon God, we're simply saying that Genisis is probably more metaphor than history, and that this whole thing could happen with minimal to no guidance.
'Now as to Guest_curios's wanting to know about the water, I can explain. I believe that the layer of ice above the earth was actually rather thick. As such, it could partially support its own weight just because of the curvature of the earth. However, I think how most of its weight was supported by air pressure. Did you know that if you double the air pressure, the plasma in our blood becomes oxygen saturated? This is important because it was one of the reasons people lived so long back then. Therefore, I would conjecture that the weight of the ice layer increased the atmospheric pressure to support its weight. (This of course, necessitates that it was already created that way) As to where it went, well when the comet that I believe caused the flood hit, it obviously would have cracked the ice layer, releasing the air pressure and hence the primary mode of support. So all the water is still in our oceans. After the flood, where we have oceans now simply sank down, revealing land. '
Ok, i am going to assume that this ice, although supported by earths magnetism i imagine, and although it is touching compressed (and therefore warmer) air it will still be cold enough to be diamagnetic. Also assume earth started this way. A thick layer of ice would obviously not be perfect, would have a great many imperfections, causing it to be white for the most part, have high albedo, cold, everything dies....i already said this though. Also, what happens when the sun starts to heat one side? Wouldn't it heat up enough to stop being diamagnetic. Wouldn't the ice crack when one side expanded as it cooled on the night side and the other side compressed as it heated in the sun, therefore starting your flood within hours of the earth being created (if you believe in creation, i don't). Say all this is true, which i just showed would be a far crazier long shot than life starting on its own.
So according to your crazy idea, we have compressed air, and according to this idea this leads to supersaturation of oxygen in our blood, leading to longer lives. WRONG! Lack of oxygen does not cause people to die of old age. Barring any diseases or accidents etc., people die from old age die. This is because the natural death of cells due to normal activity causes the other cells to divide constantly to replace them and keep the body functioning (oversimplification). When each cell divides, the chromosomes replicate so that each of the two new cells from the old one have their own copy of each of the chromosomes. Each time these chromosomes have to replicate, things called telomers on the end of these chromosomes have a little bit cut off of them. When the telomer is all gone after many replications of the chromosome, that chromosome cannot replicate, that cell cannot divide to replace the others. The body can no longer fix itself in that area as well, and eventually it...uh fails.(again oversimplification, you get the idea) Point being, supersaturation of oxygen in the blood will not cause people to not die of old age until centuries have passed.
'As to your comments on dinosaurs, I agree, today we do not have the same species. It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.'
Breeding and a new climate causing new species....kinda sounds like evolution.
gj matt on showing how frigan ridiculous this ice shielf is
Ok, i am going to assume that this ice, although supported by earths magnetism i imagine, and although it is touching compressed (and therefore warmer) air it will still be cold enough to be diamagnetic. Also assume earth started this way. A thick layer of ice would obviously not be perfect, would have a great many imperfections, causing it to be white for the most part, have high albedo, cold, everything dies....i already said this though. Also, what happens when the sun starts to heat one side? Wouldn't it heat up enough to stop being diamagnetic. Wouldn't the ice crack when one side expanded as it cooled on the night side and the other side compressed as it heated in the sun, therefore starting your flood within hours of the earth being created (if you believe in creation, i don't). Say all this is true, which i just showed would be a far crazier long shot than life starting on its own.
So according to your crazy idea, we have compressed air, and according to this idea this leads to supersaturation of oxygen in our blood, leading to longer lives. WRONG! Lack of oxygen does not cause people to die of old age. Barring any diseases or accidents etc., people die from old age die. This is because the natural death of cells due to normal activity causes the other cells to divide constantly to replace them and keep the body functioning (oversimplification). When each cell divides, the chromosomes replicate so that each of the two new cells from the old one have their own copy of each of the chromosomes. Each time these chromosomes have to replicate, things called telomers on the end of these chromosomes have a little bit cut off of them. When the telomer is all gone after many replications of the chromosome, that chromosome cannot replicate, that cell cannot divide to replace the others. The body can no longer fix itself in that area as well, and eventually it...uh fails.(again oversimplification, you get the idea) Point being, supersaturation of oxygen in the blood will not cause people to not die of old age until centuries have passed.
'As to your comments on dinosaurs, I agree, today we do not have the same species. It seems to me that a worldwide flood might kill some species, and then breeding, climate etc. would generate new species since then. So your comment on the impossibility of growing reptiles to dinosaur size doesn't quite work, based on the different species.'
Breeding and a new climate causing new species....kinda sounds like evolution.
gj matt on showing how frigan ridiculous this ice shielf is
as of the oxygen, maybe you should look into what Anti Oxidants do for the body and why doctors think they will make you live longer and why.
QUOTE
The parting to the red sea. First of all it was not the RED sea but the REED sea. Which at the time of season (according to the bible) was all marsh land and weeds. So the parting of it was only to part the weeds to walk through it.
Tanya, I would be glad to accept your criticism if you had yours facts straight. Guess what? They actually found where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and it was definitely not a reed sea. Go to www.anchorstone.com to see yourself. (of course, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that site, but I digress) QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The parting to the red sea. First of all it was not the RED sea but the REED sea. Which at the time of season (according to the bible) was all marsh land and weeds. So the parting of it was only to part the weeds to walk through it. |
Tanya, I would be glad to accept your criticism if you had yours facts straight. Guess what? They actually found where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and it was definitely not a reed sea. Go to www.anchorstone.com to see yourself. (of course, I'm sure you'll find something wrong with that site, but I digress) The idea of a burning bush that did not burn and apperently is still there is fake. I do understand and a bush is not like a tree, a bush will grow from its roots over and over again, but to have a bush burn and still be there is impossible.
You're absolutely right. The burning bush was not in fact a bush: it represented the enlightened 'third eye'. All that happened when moses saw the burning bush was that he had a vision and saw god. (simplified, of course) Also, I never heard anything about Moses worshipping a sun god, so if you could please post a link, that'd be great.
matt, thanks for the calculations. It definitely puts a limit on the thickness of the hypothetical ice shield. Also, just for clarification, whenever I said the ice layer was thick, I meant as opposed to say a few centimeters thick, not necessarily more than a meter.
QUOTE
but isn't this evolution?
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Its microevolution. Micro evolution, or adaptation, is a perfectly scientific and observable phenomenon, whereas I would argue macro evolution is not. I simply avoided using that word in that post to avoid confusion.
Guest_curios, it seems you think this whole ice shelf idea is ridiculous. From your post, you mainly have a problem with imperfections in the ice causing various problems. I agree, if there were any imperfections, it simply would have collapsed very quickly. However, assuming that it was preformed, (i.e. created that way, like it says in the bible) how much harder is it to assume that it was free from imperfections? Certainly if g*d created it, he would have done it right. (I'm not trying to argue out of necessity, but hypothetically, if g*d truly exists, that does make sense.) More importantly, (and scienfitically) just because going from liquid water to ice causes imperfections, doesn't necessarily mean there would have been imperfections if the ice was created pre-frozen.
QUOTE
although it is touching compressed (and therefore warmer)
Not necessarily. The temperature of our atmosphere actually gets colder the higher you go. Assuming this ice layer was reasonably close to what we now consider space, if should have been plently cold enough to remain frozen, if not remain diamagnetic. One actually very important point I should mention is that all forms of water are actually diamagnetic. It's just that water's diamagnetic strength increases with decreasing temperature. So if it warmed up a bit, I don't think it would necessarily cause it to collapse.
QUOTE
So according to your crazy idea, we have compressed air, and according to this idea this leads to supersaturation of oxygen in our blood, leading to longer lives. WRONG!
One more thing. I never said supersaturation was solely responsible for longevity. I actually remember saying it was one of the ways, and actually a minor one at that. I think preflood longevity actually had more to do with their diet, (more particularly, very specific things in their diet) than it had to do with supersaturation of oxygen. I also think the supposed ice shield that you so despise shielded them from most all radiation, which could have had a part in it.
I'm afraid that I'm going to put mr Wyatt into the Crank column.
I mean what are the odds of finding one major artifact from the bible? people have been looking for them for over 2000 thousand years. and in a short span of time he's found what 5 of them? the Odds seem against it. Why hasn't this made international news? how come I haven't seen him on the discovery channel? I saw the special on Jericho. I've seen the special on Troy. I've seen the special where they show that the Red sea could have actually been parted if the wind was blowing strongly in the right direction for over 8 hours. Nothing on mr Wyatt.
to me this is just another guy playing on the ignorance and gullibility of a population starving to find something to cling too. People want to beleive that the reason their life sucks is because of some greater force that is against them, and not simply because they are losers. (and I'm not saying this about you per se. I really don't know you well enough to make such generalizations. But those are the type of people that buy into all of this crap and get taken advantage of by con men)
But I'll read thru it, and look for some counter opinions and give you a full assessment.
I mean what are the odds of finding one major artifact from the bible? people have been looking for them for over 2000 thousand years. and in a short span of time he's found what 5 of them? the Odds seem against it. Why hasn't this made international news? how come I haven't seen him on the discovery channel? I saw the special on Jericho. I've seen the special on Troy. I've seen the special where they show that the Red sea could have actually been parted if the wind was blowing strongly in the right direction for over 8 hours. Nothing on mr Wyatt.
to me this is just another guy playing on the ignorance and gullibility of a population starving to find something to cling too. People want to beleive that the reason their life sucks is because of some greater force that is against them, and not simply because they are losers. (and I'm not saying this about you per se. I really don't know you well enough to make such generalizations. But those are the type of people that buy into all of this crap and get taken advantage of by con men)
But I'll read thru it, and look for some counter opinions and give you a full assessment.
you may want to read this site.
http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGrea...istianScam.html
it seems to paint a different picture of Mr Wyatt.
In the end though the postulate 'Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence' still holds.
a few snap shots of Coral and a shiny gold wheel do not count as Extraordinary evidence.
http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGrea...istianScam.html
it seems to paint a different picture of Mr Wyatt.
In the end though the postulate 'Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence' still holds.
a few snap shots of Coral and a shiny gold wheel do not count as Extraordinary evidence.
I was watching discovery channel and there was a program on the fact the Moses was praising a SUN god. If you want go to that site. Again like I said this is all just an opinion. Again something that was stated from the program. Whether is has a stand for credibility I am not sure. Again this is what I seen and made an opinion
'However, assuming that it was preformed, (i.e. created that way, like it says in the bible) how much harder is it to assume that it was free from imperfections? Certainly if g*d created it, he would have done it right.'
Very much harder. Preformed or not, the sun would be heating the one side drastically on the day side, and space cooling the ice or water just as drastically on the other. This massive and significantly brittle ice shield would be expanding on one side and contracting on the other constantly, and very likely freezing and melting every day. Imperfections are inevitable.
'Assuming this ice layer was reasonably close to what we now consider space, if should have been plently cold enough to remain frozen'
Have you ever heard of astronaut suits having to have both very effective cooling and heating systems? This is because on the night side of the planet the astronauts would freeze their asses off and on the day side they would be cooked alive by the sun. The ice would be melting into water on the day side. Even if the ice was sufficiently cooled on the night side to resist the heat of the sun for half a day, the north or south pole would be facing the sun for months at a time, and would certainly melt. Air pressure being released is therefore inevitable, and this water would probably not float on top of the atmosphere now being denser than the ice, and at zero degrees and above the diamagetism is essentially trivially negligible. Too many problems for this ice shield to last for something like a decade let alone a thousand years.
Very much harder. Preformed or not, the sun would be heating the one side drastically on the day side, and space cooling the ice or water just as drastically on the other. This massive and significantly brittle ice shield would be expanding on one side and contracting on the other constantly, and very likely freezing and melting every day. Imperfections are inevitable.
'Assuming this ice layer was reasonably close to what we now consider space, if should have been plently cold enough to remain frozen'
Have you ever heard of astronaut suits having to have both very effective cooling and heating systems? This is because on the night side of the planet the astronauts would freeze their asses off and on the day side they would be cooked alive by the sun. The ice would be melting into water on the day side. Even if the ice was sufficiently cooled on the night side to resist the heat of the sun for half a day, the north or south pole would be facing the sun for months at a time, and would certainly melt. Air pressure being released is therefore inevitable, and this water would probably not float on top of the atmosphere now being denser than the ice, and at zero degrees and above the diamagetism is essentially trivially negligible. Too many problems for this ice shield to last for something like a decade let alone a thousand years.
Guest_curious, if the ice was free from imperfections, it would be completely transparent, and the sunlight would not heat it at all.
Tanya, while I agree the discovery channel is usually a credible source, I would not be hasty to believe everything it had to say regarding creation/evolution etc. I'm not saying they aren't, but as we can't view the program again, there really is no way of knowing. Of course, I don't even think having Moses worship a sun god even matters.
Tanya, while I agree the discovery channel is usually a credible source, I would not be hasty to believe everything it had to say regarding creation/evolution etc. I'm not saying they aren't, but as we can't view the program again, there really is no way of knowing. Of course, I don't even think having Moses worship a sun god even matters.
QUOTE
I'm afraid that I'm going to put mr Wyatt into the Crank column.
I mean what are the odds of finding one major artifact from the bible? people have been looking for them for over 2000 thousand years. and in a short span of time he's found what 5 of them? the Odds seem against it.
Matt, are you really telling me that you can believe in the odds of evolution happening, but not that one guy finds a few things? And its not like he was just randomly picking spots to dig. It seems to me like if you're looking for noah's ark, you maybe, just might want to look around the mountains of ararat, which is exactly where he found it. So if you really have some problem with this guy, let me know, but don't tell me "the odds" just wouldn't allow it. Furthermore, its not like you couldn't march yourself right over there and see for yourself. So I see no reason to belittle or discredit Mr. Wyatt when what he found is tangible and observable. The reason they haven't been found yet is that, as you always say, upwards of 99% of religious people are complete dumb***es. They wouldn't know where to look if you gave them a shovel and told them to dig.
I mean what are the odds of finding one major artifact from the bible? people have been looking for them for over 2000 thousand years. and in a short span of time he's found what 5 of them? the Odds seem against it.
Matt, I read through the whole website you posted and only found one thing.
QUOTE
He basically said all of Wyatt's evidence for his discoveries is circumstantial.
Translation: No, we did not find a large wooden boat intact, all we found was the rotten corpse of it. Matt, you could not possibly think a wooden structure could stay intact for thousands of years. If you read Mr. Wyatt's work, you'll see that all he found was was what left over after it decayed, not the ark itself. That quote is the only 'evidence' in that whole webpage against Mr. Wyatt's work. Everything else in that website is about attacking Mr. Wyatt personally, which has nothing to do with his work, or the reliability of it.
Yes it's true you can not trust everything in the bible, but one I take is he did not want religions he wanted a spiritual world, a world connected with everything by energy basically (to me). I do not believe in religion it causes war. The only war there should be is between good and evil. We suppose in each religion they would believe in good, but with religion; opposing beliefs on how things happened there is war, killings of people doing the same thing their trying to do, work towards good. To me good is those who work for all this includes evil, but it can also abolish evil.
QUOTE
Matt, are you really telling me that you can believe in the odds of evolution happening, but not that one guy finds a few things
If we look at the Odds of evolution they are not as far out as creationist like to quote.
If you have a billion chances for something to happen, a million to one chance is pretty common. Once DNA was formed and somehow captured in a membrane and started dividing, there have been trillions of generations Probably more actually. and once you start adding in environmental pressures, then things become even more likely. it's not as they say the tornado flying thru the junk yard.
on the other hand, this guy in about 20 years discovered every meaningful artifact fromt the bible, even the ones that shouldn't exist anymore.
what's more likly? that this guy really found all this stuff when so many others have failed even though none of them have been confirmed by any other credible source? or that he was a con man looking to make a buck?
QUOTE
what's more likly? that this guy really found all this stuff when so many others have failed even though none of them have been confirmed by any other credible source? or that he was a con man looking to make a buck?
You have yet to show any evidence disproving his work. All you have done is resort to attacking his credibility. Like I said, if you're so convinced he's a conman, why don't you march yourself right on over there and disprove him? I realize that may cost a bit of money, but the idea is that it is verifiable. No conman in their right mind would make such claims if he knew darn well that he was lying, and that it could be proven he was lying. Refer to my previous post as to why these artifacts haven't been found yet. Furthermore, what was he selling? Books and videos? How much could he possibly make off that? Which brings me to my next point. The difference between conmen and real men is that conmen promote their work. If he was really just out to make a buck, don't you think his findings (or more importantly, the books and videos of his findings) would have been advertised more? I'm sorry, but calling him a conman without any evidence against his discoveries is just plain wrong. The only true evidence 'against' his work is that it is "circumstantial." All that means is that it is not definitive, not that it is wrong.
I beleive he was also selling trips out there to show off his work to a few people.
but lets say I go out there and dive where he tells me to dive and I don't find any chariot wheels? have I disproved anything? not really. I may just not have found them. my trip is in vain. but in the end. the burden of disproof is not on me. the Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A couple of snapshots of wheel shaped coral is not proof. it would be like me taking a picture of a cloud and using it to prove that satan exists (which also has been done) or beleiveing that the Virgin Mary is imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Pons and Fleishman said they made fusion in a bottle. Lots of people tried and failed. However this does not disprove that they made fusion in a bottle. it only proves that the experiment isn't easily reproducible. They had an extraordinarly claim that defied common thought. they didn't have the extraordinary proof to back it up. Now it turns out that people are still working on it and that there is something going on. But it's going to take a whole lot of proof before it's widely accepted.
This is how science works.
but lets say I go out there and dive where he tells me to dive and I don't find any chariot wheels? have I disproved anything? not really. I may just not have found them. my trip is in vain. but in the end. the burden of disproof is not on me. the Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A couple of snapshots of wheel shaped coral is not proof. it would be like me taking a picture of a cloud and using it to prove that satan exists (which also has been done) or beleiveing that the Virgin Mary is imprinted on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Pons and Fleishman said they made fusion in a bottle. Lots of people tried and failed. However this does not disprove that they made fusion in a bottle. it only proves that the experiment isn't easily reproducible. They had an extraordinarly claim that defied common thought. they didn't have the extraordinary proof to back it up. Now it turns out that people are still working on it and that there is something going on. But it's going to take a whole lot of proof before it's widely accepted.
This is how science works.
QUOTE
Guest_curious, if the ice was free from imperfections, it would be completely transparent, and the sunlight would not heat it at all.
I nominate this for the dumbest statement made.....EVAR!!
And just to test...I placed some [perfect] ice cubes in the sun.
Imagine my surprise when, just like the1physisct says, they didn't melt. Huh...whaddupwitdat!
That's when I realized that I was just dreaming....haha...silly me.
So, then I really put some [perfect] ice cubes in the sun. When I went in to get my coffee and came back, they weren't there. Maybe god stole them.
to be fair. you'd have to put them in the sun. when it's really cold outside. so they aren't melting do to the temperature of the air. I suppose if you put them in a clear vaccuum chamber in the sun it'd be ok.
QUOTE
Matt, are you really telling me that you can believe in the odds of evolution happening, but not that one guy finds a few things?
Yup, I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to tell you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Matt, are you really telling me that you can believe in the odds of evolution happening, but not that one guy finds a few things? |
Yup, I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to tell you.
So I see no reason to belittle or discredit Mr. Wyatt when what he found is tangible and observable.
Yes, but these people do. http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html
(look (AND READ) the numerous articles posted at the bottom)
Yes, I know that this link has been posted before, but if the1physicist puts forth even 1 iota of the effort in reading this as he puts into postulating absurdities then maybe links like this wouldn't HAVE TO BE REGURGITATED!!
QUOTE
The reason they haven't been found yet is that, as you always say, upwards of 99% of religious people are complete dumb***es.
Ok, that's ONE right answer for you.....but don't let that become a habit
QUOTE (Matt+Dec 17 2004, 05:47 PM)
to be fair. you'd have to put them in the sun. when it's really cold outside. so they aren't melting do to the temperature of the air. I suppose if you put them in a clear vaccuum chamber in the sun it'd be ok.
And wouldn't the temperature of the air be dependant on the position of the sun (for the most part)?
And wouldn't the temperature of the air be dependant on the position of the sun (for the most part)?
but if the ice shell was in space, then only radiation from the sun would affect it.
convection and conduction wouldn't be in play (much) so I would be interested in knowing if crystal clear ice (if such a thing is possible at the thickness of over a meter) would capture any energy from sunlight going thru it.
though even if it didn't we still have the solar wind which is made up of Ionized particles which as we see today is deflected by the magnetic field and funneled to the poles. I think that would cause some melting over time.
convection and conduction wouldn't be in play (much) so I would be interested in knowing if crystal clear ice (if such a thing is possible at the thickness of over a meter) would capture any energy from sunlight going thru it.
though even if it didn't we still have the solar wind which is made up of Ionized particles which as we see today is deflected by the magnetic field and funneled to the poles. I think that would cause some melting over time.
QUOTE (Matt+Dec 17 2004, 06:13 PM)
but if the ice shell was in space, then only radiation from the sun would affect it.
Fact: Ice (as in frozen water) , perfect or no, will melt when faced w/ temperatures greater than the freezing point of water. I don't think it matters whether it's in a vacuum or not.
Fact: Ice (as in frozen water) , perfect or no, will melt when faced w/ temperatures greater than the freezing point of water. I don't think it matters whether it's in a vacuum or not.
sorry for my spelling,
here is my 2 cents
creation brought forth eveloution and eveloution improved creation
lacking the ability to dynamically understand mutiple reallaties forces us to disect what we are trying to understand. this act of disection destroys the essance of our target.
we get people who gravitate to the extreme poles of the context and somehow start to believe what they can see so clearly it absoloute truth. while in my openion only the combabation of both sides makes a whole that carries animation.
I believe that the only absloute truth that exsits is the number one. if we consider everything in its purest definition there can only be one of everything. The fact that everything is amassing to greater potential still leaves it as one everything.
wherether is was lonliness or boredome that caused a crack in the one the crack created a prismatic effect bouncing light and the first act of an evolving matrix which we exist in. the crack in reallity allows new material to be interjected
what we are trying to do is similar to a kid taking apart his dog in order to find out what makes the dog love him.
here is my 2 cents
creation brought forth eveloution and eveloution improved creation
lacking the ability to dynamically understand mutiple reallaties forces us to disect what we are trying to understand. this act of disection destroys the essance of our target.
we get people who gravitate to the extreme poles of the context and somehow start to believe what they can see so clearly it absoloute truth. while in my openion only the combabation of both sides makes a whole that carries animation.
I believe that the only absloute truth that exsits is the number one. if we consider everything in its purest definition there can only be one of everything. The fact that everything is amassing to greater potential still leaves it as one everything.
wherether is was lonliness or boredome that caused a crack in the one the crack created a prismatic effect bouncing light and the first act of an evolving matrix which we exist in. the crack in reallity allows new material to be interjected
what we are trying to do is similar to a kid taking apart his dog in order to find out what makes the dog love him.
Being an actual physicist I find this whole ice shield preposterous. For many reasons :
1)
If this type of event has indeed occured there would be a geologic record of such an event. The eventual collapse of such a structure on a a planetary scale, would leave evidence. There has never been even slight evidence in core samples taken around the globe for this hypothesis. If real it would be in all samples taken at the appropriate depth.
2)
The "Laws of scaling"
There are physical properties to scale that no one is considering.
It is structurally impossible for such a structure to form. It's own weight would exceed its ability to retain its structure. There would be no way that this volume of ice would not have impurities.
Consider this :
@ -4.5 degrees
S= Tensile Strength
S = 2.74AV-0 84 + 9.4 kg cm-2
A the cross-sectional area in cm2 and V the volume in cm3. The final equation derived on statistical grounds approximates the equation found empirically, and reads as follows Sr, n = kA1/β V-1/β + C where Sr, n is the number average of the tensile strength, k, β and C are constants and r is the number of imperfections in each of n parallel elements. This result is quite general and not just confined to ice.
The conclusion is reached that due to imperfections the tensile strength is a statistical function of the volume and cross-sectional area of the specimens. Superimposed on the statistical effect is a stress distribution effect, which becomes predominant for large volumes.
No matter what volume you guess at (thickness of the ice, temperature, structural shape) it would not be able to sustain it's own weight. Besides its direct weight. The air pressure required to sustain the lift potential of such a massive piece of ice would undoubtely blow holes in the weaker points in the ice with explosive decompression. No way for such a large piece of ice to be uniform in thickness. So the thinner weaker points in the ice would fracture under the air pressure of billions tonnes of ice.
3)
The so called "Ice Age" did not actually freeze the entire surface of the Earth. It had an effect in all areas of the planet, but the portion that was actually covered in sheet ice was limited.
Just critically think about it....
1)
If this type of event has indeed occured there would be a geologic record of such an event. The eventual collapse of such a structure on a a planetary scale, would leave evidence. There has never been even slight evidence in core samples taken around the globe for this hypothesis. If real it would be in all samples taken at the appropriate depth.
2)
The "Laws of scaling"
There are physical properties to scale that no one is considering.
It is structurally impossible for such a structure to form. It's own weight would exceed its ability to retain its structure. There would be no way that this volume of ice would not have impurities.
Consider this :
@ -4.5 degrees
S= Tensile Strength
S = 2.74AV-0 84 + 9.4 kg cm-2
A the cross-sectional area in cm2 and V the volume in cm3. The final equation derived on statistical grounds approximates the equation found empirically, and reads as follows Sr, n = kA1/β V-1/β + C where Sr, n is the number average of the tensile strength, k, β and C are constants and r is the number of imperfections in each of n parallel elements. This result is quite general and not just confined to ice.
The conclusion is reached that due to imperfections the tensile strength is a statistical function of the volume and cross-sectional area of the specimens. Superimposed on the statistical effect is a stress distribution effect, which becomes predominant for large volumes.
No matter what volume you guess at (thickness of the ice, temperature, structural shape) it would not be able to sustain it's own weight. Besides its direct weight. The air pressure required to sustain the lift potential of such a massive piece of ice would undoubtely blow holes in the weaker points in the ice with explosive decompression. No way for such a large piece of ice to be uniform in thickness. So the thinner weaker points in the ice would fracture under the air pressure of billions tonnes of ice.
3)
The so called "Ice Age" did not actually freeze the entire surface of the Earth. It had an effect in all areas of the planet, but the portion that was actually covered in sheet ice was limited.
Just critically think about it....
A scientist by nature...Why Theistic Evolution someone posted about earlier is probably incorrect.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION:
The main purpose of the Bible is to testify to Jesus Christ, not to testify to creationism. To try to make the Bible fit "modern times", some Christians have mixed evolution and creation. With that said, looking at whether the Bible speaks of theistic evolution (God made it and let it evolve), or of creationism (That God made everything in 6 days), we need to read it in its original text.
According to the Old Testament, the world was created in 6 days. The Hebrew word for "day" used in the creation account is yome and had a very specific meaning in the Old Testament times. It referred to a specific period of time that began at sunset, included the evening and the morning, and lasted until the following sunset (24-hours total). Also, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament written between 285 BC and 132 BC, uses the word hay-mer'-ah where the word yome is used in the Hebrew. The Greek word used in the Septuagint literally referred to the space between dawn and dark, or 24-hours. These two grammatical proofs ie. textual criticism, are indicators that theistic evolution is false and should readily be dismissed. Eliminating Theistic Evolution leaves us with either Evolution or Creation.
More later as I have time...
-------------------------------------------
Every age has its prevailing view of reality. In past ages many learned people were absolutely convinced the world was flat. Human reason supported that view, as did the acquired empirical knowledge of that day. Yet truth is truth, and just because a particular view is accepted as fact by most people does not make that view necessarily accurate or factual.
THEISTIC EVOLUTION:
The main purpose of the Bible is to testify to Jesus Christ, not to testify to creationism. To try to make the Bible fit "modern times", some Christians have mixed evolution and creation. With that said, looking at whether the Bible speaks of theistic evolution (God made it and let it evolve), or of creationism (That God made everything in 6 days), we need to read it in its original text.
According to the Old Testament, the world was created in 6 days. The Hebrew word for "day" used in the creation account is yome and had a very specific meaning in the Old Testament times. It referred to a specific period of time that began at sunset, included the evening and the morning, and lasted until the following sunset (24-hours total). Also, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament written between 285 BC and 132 BC, uses the word hay-mer'-ah where the word yome is used in the Hebrew. The Greek word used in the Septuagint literally referred to the space between dawn and dark, or 24-hours. These two grammatical proofs ie. textual criticism, are indicators that theistic evolution is false and should readily be dismissed. Eliminating Theistic Evolution leaves us with either Evolution or Creation.
More later as I have time...
-------------------------------------------
Every age has its prevailing view of reality. In past ages many learned people were absolutely convinced the world was flat. Human reason supported that view, as did the acquired empirical knowledge of that day. Yet truth is truth, and just because a particular view is accepted as fact by most people does not make that view necessarily accurate or factual.
QUOTE (WxULM+Dec 17 2004, 09:09 PM)
Eliminating Theistic Evolution leaves us with either Evolution or Creation.
ok so your an idiot.
Take this is an example of the quote.
You have a plum an orange and a lemon
You take the plum away and your left with what you started with.
This is what you are saying. Really not making sense.
whatever
ok so your an idiot.
Take this is an example of the quote.
You have a plum an orange and a lemon
You take the plum away and your left with what you started with.
This is what you are saying. Really not making sense.
whatever
the1realist, you may think its funny to rip off my name, but its not, particularly when it is crystal clear you're implying I'm wrong (i.e., the1realist, as opposed to fake). Furthermore, all the flame in the world won't melt this ice layer unless you can actually develop a logical argument. Take Matt for example. He disagrees with me yet is still capable of defending his argument(s), and I respect that. You however, are simply foaming at the mouth. And now on to the real discussion:
First, I need to make a clarification. Due to Matt's limiting calculation on the amount of water that could have been in the supposed ice layer, I think it would be more reasonable to say that it was closer to say 10cm thick, and definitely not more than a meter. This is also because the water in our present oceans came from four sources, and not just the ice layer.
Awozny, thanks for the equation and all, but its rather hard to read (missing operators), so if you could repost a cleaned up version, that'd be great. However, I thought tensile strength was a stretching force? If this ice layer existed, the weight of the ice would have exerted a compression force horizontally. So I don't think tensile strength has anything to do with it, but correct me if I have missed something.
You also claim that if such a layer collapsed, there would be evidence all around the world. The first thing I would say is that wouldn't the ice melt from the heat of re-entry? Even if it did not, the flood was probably (for various reasons) already partially underway before the layer collapsed, so that at most, all you would have is a big 'splash.' Furthermore, assuming the flood did indeed happed, I would think that the flood would have destroyed any evidence of such an un-melted ice layer falling. Actually, here is what I think happened. I think the ice layer partially melted as it collapsed, but soon the ice began filling the polar oceans (along with ice from the supposed comet), creating the 'ice age'. Then, as the flood raged on, all evidence of the collapse was destroyed, leaving us with only the evidence of the flood and the ice age.
Now as I was reading through your post, it seems the only objection(s) you have against this ice layer are for non-ideal circumstances (i.e. imperfections, different thicknesses, etc.). So I ask you, IF there were no imperfections, and IF the layer was uniform, etc., would you think otherwise? Thanks in advance.
First, I need to make a clarification. Due to Matt's limiting calculation on the amount of water that could have been in the supposed ice layer, I think it would be more reasonable to say that it was closer to say 10cm thick, and definitely not more than a meter. This is also because the water in our present oceans came from four sources, and not just the ice layer.
Awozny, thanks for the equation and all, but its rather hard to read (missing operators), so if you could repost a cleaned up version, that'd be great. However, I thought tensile strength was a stretching force? If this ice layer existed, the weight of the ice would have exerted a compression force horizontally. So I don't think tensile strength has anything to do with it, but correct me if I have missed something.
You also claim that if such a layer collapsed, there would be evidence all around the world. The first thing I would say is that wouldn't the ice melt from the heat of re-entry? Even if it did not, the flood was probably (for various reasons) already partially underway before the layer collapsed, so that at most, all you would have is a big 'splash.' Furthermore, assuming the flood did indeed happed, I would think that the flood would have destroyed any evidence of such an un-melted ice layer falling. Actually, here is what I think happened. I think the ice layer partially melted as it collapsed, but soon the ice began filling the polar oceans (along with ice from the supposed comet), creating the 'ice age'. Then, as the flood raged on, all evidence of the collapse was destroyed, leaving us with only the evidence of the flood and the ice age.
Now as I was reading through your post, it seems the only objection(s) you have against this ice layer are for non-ideal circumstances (i.e. imperfections, different thicknesses, etc.). So I ask you, IF there were no imperfections, and IF the layer was uniform, etc., would you think otherwise? Thanks in advance.
Not that I agree with the ice shield theory. but just to point out some errors, (at least in my humble opinion. I don't claim to be a physist or anything. I'm just someone who likes to think about things. but.....
[QUOTE]Ice (as in frozen water) , perfect or no, will melt when faced w/ temperatures greater than the freezing point of water.[/QUOTE]
How do you define termperature? On earth temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the atmosphere. in space, there is no atmosphere.
Heat can be transferred in 3 ways, there's Conduction
[qoute]Conduction is heat transfer by means of molecular agitation within a material without any motion of the material as a whole. If one end of a metal rod is at a higher temperature, then energy will be transferred down the rod toward the colder end because the higher speed particles will collide with the slower ones with a net transfer of energy to the slower ones. [/quote]
after a bit, the entire ice shield will be the same temperature. so long as no new heat is being added. (I'm still not certain if the sun will be adding heat or not but I'll get to that later)
there's Convection
[quote]
Convection is heat transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it. Convection above a hot surface occurs because hot air expands, becomes less dense, and rises (see Ideal Gas Law). Hot water is likewise less dense than cold water and rises, causing convection currents which transport energy.[/quote]
if we're assuming the ice shield is in space, the Convection won't come into play very much since there shouldn't be any air up there.
Unless we're sticking with assuming that the high pressure was also supporting the shield. then the air molecules will be transfering heat to the shield. Heat rising from the earth will hit the shield and probably melt it since the ice shield wouldn't be able to vent much of the heat to space. (since there's no molecules on the other side to transfer the heat to or to conduct too.
if we drop the air pressure thing which I would almost say we have to, then the ice shield is left back in a vaccuum with no atoms to add or subtract heat. (other than the solar wind which agian I say kills the theory plus cosmic rays, and micro meteors )
which leaves us with the final means Radiation.
Radiation.
[quote] Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:[/quote]
this will be Sunlight and also, the magnetic field which you claim also supported the ice shield.
Now, if the ice was perfectly transparent. (which by the way I don't think is possible) then I'm willing to accept that the light from the sun could pass thru the ice shield without a problem. of course this would create a green house on the earth because that heat has to go somewhere, and I think this also would eventually melt the shield. but even if we over look that, the magnetism that is pushing against the ice would also cause the ice to heat up.
so no matter how you slice it. I just don't see how the shield could exist for any length of time.
The earth is being constantly bombarded with solar wind particles (which form the northern and souther lights) and you can't say that before the sun didn't emit those. then :
[quote]Every year there are about 30 meteors that explode in the atmosphere with power greater than a kiloton — the equivalent of a thousands tons of TNT — Worden said. -- http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020916/meteor.html[/quote]
those rocks hitting an ice shield above the atmosphere would impart a great deal more energy into the ice and at best, fill it full of holes, at worst, completely shatter it. and at 30 a year, not to mention all the countless smaller ones only hitting with the force of 1 or more tons of tnt (hell even a stick of TNT will do a number on a patch of ice less than a foot thick. if you want to test it, go out to a lake this winter with a few M-80s and see what happens) I can't see how an ice shield would last more than a week. then there's cosmic rays, and I think I read about some kind of sub atomic particles that actually smash thru the earth and leave siesmic evidence of their path.
here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2502755.stm strange quark Matter. I bet that would leave a mark.
I'm eager to read your rebutal for this. but as they say on one of my favorite shows.
Myth Busted.
[QUOTE]Ice (as in frozen water) , perfect or no, will melt when faced w/ temperatures greater than the freezing point of water.[/QUOTE]
How do you define termperature? On earth temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms in the atmosphere. in space, there is no atmosphere.
Heat can be transferred in 3 ways, there's Conduction
[qoute]Conduction is heat transfer by means of molecular agitation within a material without any motion of the material as a whole. If one end of a metal rod is at a higher temperature, then energy will be transferred down the rod toward the colder end because the higher speed particles will collide with the slower ones with a net transfer of energy to the slower ones. [/quote]
after a bit, the entire ice shield will be the same temperature. so long as no new heat is being added. (I'm still not certain if the sun will be adding heat or not but I'll get to that later)
there's Convection
[quote]
Convection is heat transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it. Convection above a hot surface occurs because hot air expands, becomes less dense, and rises (see Ideal Gas Law). Hot water is likewise less dense than cold water and rises, causing convection currents which transport energy.[/quote]
if we're assuming the ice shield is in space, the Convection won't come into play very much since there shouldn't be any air up there.
Unless we're sticking with assuming that the high pressure was also supporting the shield. then the air molecules will be transfering heat to the shield. Heat rising from the earth will hit the shield and probably melt it since the ice shield wouldn't be able to vent much of the heat to space. (since there's no molecules on the other side to transfer the heat to or to conduct too.
if we drop the air pressure thing which I would almost say we have to, then the ice shield is left back in a vaccuum with no atoms to add or subtract heat. (other than the solar wind which agian I say kills the theory plus cosmic rays, and micro meteors )
which leaves us with the final means Radiation.
Radiation.
[quote] Radiation is heat transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:[/quote]
this will be Sunlight and also, the magnetic field which you claim also supported the ice shield.
Now, if the ice was perfectly transparent. (which by the way I don't think is possible) then I'm willing to accept that the light from the sun could pass thru the ice shield without a problem. of course this would create a green house on the earth because that heat has to go somewhere, and I think this also would eventually melt the shield. but even if we over look that, the magnetism that is pushing against the ice would also cause the ice to heat up.
so no matter how you slice it. I just don't see how the shield could exist for any length of time.
The earth is being constantly bombarded with solar wind particles (which form the northern and souther lights) and you can't say that before the sun didn't emit those. then :
[quote]Every year there are about 30 meteors that explode in the atmosphere with power greater than a kiloton — the equivalent of a thousands tons of TNT — Worden said. -- http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020916/meteor.html[/quote]
those rocks hitting an ice shield above the atmosphere would impart a great deal more energy into the ice and at best, fill it full of holes, at worst, completely shatter it. and at 30 a year, not to mention all the countless smaller ones only hitting with the force of 1 or more tons of tnt (hell even a stick of TNT will do a number on a patch of ice less than a foot thick. if you want to test it, go out to a lake this winter with a few M-80s and see what happens) I can't see how an ice shield would last more than a week. then there's cosmic rays, and I think I read about some kind of sub atomic particles that actually smash thru the earth and leave siesmic evidence of their path.
here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2502755.stm strange quark Matter. I bet that would leave a mark.
I'm eager to read your rebutal for this. but as they say on one of my favorite shows.
Myth Busted.
QUOTE (the1physicist+Dec 18 2004, 12:24 AM)
Furthermore, all the flame in the world won't melt this ice layer unless you can actually develop a logical argument.
I don't need flame to melt your ice shield because all it's made of is your hopes and dreams....it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that no ice shield could've existed around the earth's atmosphere, but you continue on and on....and please...you don't even proivde facts or an iota of rational thought. I'll explain:
Due to Matt's limiting calculation on the amount of water that could have been in the supposed ice layer, I think it would be more reasonable to say that it was closer to say 10cm thick, and definitely not more than a meter.
Why? Because throwing random numbers out makes you believable. Why 10cm? Let's go for the big ten....hundred....million.....billion cm? As long as we're making sh1t up, let's go hog wild, eh?
Why? Because throwing random numbers out makes you believable. Why 10cm? Let's go for the big ten....hundred....million.....billion cm? As long as we're making sh1t up, let's go hog wild, eh?
Even if it did not, the flood was probably (for various reasons) already partially underway before the layer collapsed, so that at most, all you would have is a big 'splash
Must be nice just to make things up. Just a big splash? Wow, how freakin scientific.
See, that's just it right there. The crux of your argument centers on "Assume this", "Suppose that"....while that's all well and good and I praise you for your active imagination, don't belie yourself into thinking that this is in any way scientific. It has the basis for scientific study...(ie, if this was your hypothesis and you were willing to test it out) but as many people smarter than you or I have said, the chances of your ice shield happening are slim to nil.
I personally believe that there's an invisible pink elephant up in space that breathes upon our planet every ~50,000 years creating our ice ages. The excess water that caused the (supposed worldwide) flood was spewn through his trunk. He is a benevolent elephant and surpisingly, the prayers I offer unto him are answered at the same 50% rate as I offer to god or the sun or my car. You can't really disprove this, can you?
I don't need flame to melt your ice shield because all it's made of is your hopes and dreams....it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that no ice shield could've existed around the earth's atmosphere, but you continue on and on....and please...you don't even proivde facts or an iota of rational thought. I'll explain:
QUOTE
Due to Matt's limiting calculation on the amount of water that could have been in the supposed ice layer, I think it would be more reasonable to say that it was closer to say 10cm thick, and definitely not more than a meter.
Why? Because throwing random numbers out makes you believable. Why 10cm? Let's go for the big ten....hundred....million.....billion cm? As long as we're making sh1t up, let's go hog wild, eh?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Due to Matt's limiting calculation on the amount of water that could have been in the supposed ice layer, I think it would be more reasonable to say that it was closer to say 10cm thick, and definitely not more than a meter. |
Why? Because throwing random numbers out makes you believable. Why 10cm? Let's go for the big ten....hundred....million.....billion cm? As long as we're making sh1t up, let's go hog wild, eh?
Even if it did not, the flood was probably (for various reasons) already partially underway before the layer collapsed, so that at most, all you would have is a big 'splash
Must be nice just to make things up. Just a big splash? Wow, how freakin scientific.
QUOTE
Furthermore, assuming the flood did indeed happed, I would think that the flood would have destroyed any evidence of such an un-melted ice layer falling.
See, that's just it right there. The crux of your argument centers on "Assume this", "Suppose that"....while that's all well and good and I praise you for your active imagination, don't belie yourself into thinking that this is in any way scientific. It has the basis for scientific study...(ie, if this was your hypothesis and you were willing to test it out) but as many people smarter than you or I have said, the chances of your ice shield happening are slim to nil.
I personally believe that there's an invisible pink elephant up in space that breathes upon our planet every ~50,000 years creating our ice ages. The excess water that caused the (supposed worldwide) flood was spewn through his trunk. He is a benevolent elephant and surpisingly, the prayers I offer unto him are answered at the same 50% rate as I offer to god or the sun or my car. You can't really disprove this, can you?
how can the elephant be invisible and pink?
As this ice sheild melted the preasure created between it, and earths surface would have blown some ice particles into space. Making in imposiable to calculate thickness or mass by any water measurement.
it wouldn't have blown it that far into space. whatever got blown out would have fell back to the earth in a few hundred years.
not that it would have got to that point since it would have been blown to pieces by space rocks.
did you read my last post?
not that it would have got to that point since it would have been blown to pieces by space rocks.
did you read my last post?
Not to deviate from the topic, I will address that shortly, but do you all remember when I dared suggest Saturn's rings were created by the supposed comet that created the flood? Well, I think you all should take a good look at the article about Saturn that is on the front page of our beloved physorg.com.
http://www.physorg.com/news2419.html
Here's the headline: "Saturn's outer rings could be disappearing" Hmmm, I believe I used this as an argument that the universe is still young. Let the quotes begin: (my emphasis added)
http://www.physorg.com/news2419.html
Here's the headline: "Saturn's outer rings could be disappearing" Hmmm, I believe I used this as an argument that the universe is still young. Let the quotes begin: (my emphasis added)
QUOTE
The rings of gas giants are made up of rocky debris from moons that have been torn apart by tidal waves or by an asteroid or comet collision during heavy bombardment periods.
Gee, whodathunkit? NASA, that's who, and if their credentials aren't good enough for you, no one's are. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The rings of gas giants are made up of rocky debris from moons that have been torn apart by tidal waves or by an asteroid or comet collision during heavy bombardment periods. |
Gee, whodathunkit? NASA, that's who, and if their credentials aren't good enough for you, no one's are. We have direct evidence now that the rings are made up of pure ice and that they are shaped by processes that happen fast.
I don't know of any asteroids or moons that are pure ice, so it seems like the rings are indeed fragments of a comet, just like I said before.
QUOTE
The rate at which we saw material escaping from Saturn's outer rings implies that mass equivalent to the entire E ring, even including larger fragments and parent bodies, would be consumed in a period of about 100 million years if no replenishment processes are at work.
(I would argue that age is off, but, moving on) QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The rate at which we saw material escaping from Saturn's outer rings implies that mass equivalent to the entire E ring, even including larger fragments and parent bodies, would be consumed in a period of about 100 million years if no replenishment processes are at work. |
(I would argue that age is off, but, moving on) Given the fact that the outer rings are present at this time means that the system is being replenished by interactive plasma processes," Shemansky continued. "Clearly, the fact that something is eating up micron-sized grains in the outer ring zones at a high rate tells us that some sort of recycling process must be going on to rebuild them.
And here is where Shemansky is wrong. Translation: "We now know for a fact that Saturn's rings are falling apart way too fast for the evolutionary timescale, so let's just invent some non-existant replentishing process!"
Europa, ganymeade and Calista are thought to be mostly ice. as is Pluto and most Kuiper belt objects and so are all the millions of comets in the ort cloud. and the thousands that are in orbits that take them close to Earth.
but are you saying that one single comet came by, added cubic miles of water to the earth, then swung back out and formed the rings of Saturn?
so do so. and show your work. I'm willing to bet it's a fairly simple equation.
so do so. and show your work. I'm willing to bet it's a fairly simple equation.
And here is where Shemansky is wrong. Translation: "We now know for a fact that Saturn's rings are falling apart way too fast for the evolutionary timescale, so let's just invent some non-existant replentishing process!"
we really don't know when saturn got it's rings. we never even saw them until the 1600s when Gallileo pointed his telescope at them for the first time. to assume that they were created with Saturn at the beginning of the solar system would be un scientific. unless we have some kind of proof that this happened. Given the fact that Jupiter has 3 large moons that are mostly ice and water. it stands to reason that Saturn had some as well.
the most accepted theory about the formation of our own moon now suggests that even the Earth at one point had a ring. It's been widely accepted for as long as I can remember (we at least since voyager flew by) that the Rings of the Gas Giants couldn't last forever. eventually they would clump together into a new moon, or they would spiral down into the planet. Scientist also predict that with in a few million years, Triton will get too close to Neptune and be ripped apart into a new and complex ring system similar to saturns. Long after Saturns Rings disappear.
So what exactly are does this prove in your mind? all it seems to indicate is that Saturns Rings are less than a few hundred million years old. this says nothing about the Universe, and nothing about the age of the planet earth.
but are you saying that one single comet came by, added cubic miles of water to the earth, then swung back out and formed the rings of Saturn?
QUOTE
(I would argue that age is off, but, moving on)
so do so. and show your work. I'm willing to bet it's a fairly simple equation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (I would argue that age is off, but, moving on) |
so do so. and show your work. I'm willing to bet it's a fairly simple equation.
And here is where Shemansky is wrong. Translation: "We now know for a fact that Saturn's rings are falling apart way too fast for the evolutionary timescale, so let's just invent some non-existant replentishing process!"
we really don't know when saturn got it's rings. we never even saw them until the 1600s when Gallileo pointed his telescope at them for the first time. to assume that they were created with Saturn at the beginning of the solar system would be un scientific. unless we have some kind of proof that this happened. Given the fact that Jupiter has 3 large moons that are mostly ice and water. it stands to reason that Saturn had some as well.
the most accepted theory about the formation of our own moon now suggests that even the Earth at one point had a ring. It's been widely accepted for as long as I can remember (we at least since voyager flew by) that the Rings of the Gas Giants couldn't last forever. eventually they would clump together into a new moon, or they would spiral down into the planet. Scientist also predict that with in a few million years, Triton will get too close to Neptune and be ripped apart into a new and complex ring system similar to saturns. Long after Saturns Rings disappear.
So what exactly are does this prove in your mind? all it seems to indicate is that Saturns Rings are less than a few hundred million years old. this says nothing about the Universe, and nothing about the age of the planet earth.
QUOTE
Now, if the ice was perfectly transparent. (which by the way I don't think is possible) then I'm willing to accept that the light from the sun could pass thru the ice shield without a problem. of course this would create a green house on the earth because that heat has to go somewhere, and I think this also would eventually melt the shield. but even if we over look that, the magnetism that is pushing against the ice would also cause the ice to heat up.
Alright, two things. You say the sunlight would cause a green hosue effect, but coudn't the earth (or the atmosphere) re-emit infrared rays back through the (hypothetically transparent) ice layer? Also, how exactly would the earth's magnetic field heat the ice layer, particularly if it wasn't moving relative to it? Please explain. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, if the ice was perfectly transparent. (which by the way I don't think is possible) then I'm willing to accept that the light from the sun could pass thru the ice shield without a problem. of course this would create a green house on the earth because that heat has to go somewhere, and I think this also would eventually melt the shield. but even if we over look that, the magnetism that is pushing against the ice would also cause the ice to heat up. |
Alright, two things. You say the sunlight would cause a green hosue effect, but coudn't the earth (or the atmosphere) re-emit infrared rays back through the (hypothetically transparent) ice layer? Also, how exactly would the earth's magnetic field heat the ice layer, particularly if it wasn't moving relative to it? Please explain. The earth is being constantly bombarded with solar wind particles (which form the northern and souther lights) and you can't say that before the sun didn't emit those.
I thought the solar wind was nothing but charged particles? Why exactly would charged particles cause the ice layer to collapse? I really don't understand your reasoning here.
You also said meteors would (obviously) cause the ice layer to collapse. I do agree that if there were meteors (of decent size) that hit it, it would collapse. However, IF and only if, g*d did indeed create it, it seems reasonable to assume he would prevent it from self-destructing prematurely. I don't mean to (or want to) bring religion in to prove my point, and I do realize I'm arguing out of necessity here, but I'm sorry, that's all I can offer you on that point.
You also said meteors would (obviously) cause the ice layer to collapse. I do agree that if there were meteors (of decent size) that hit it, it would collapse. However, IF and only if, g*d did indeed create it, it seems reasonable to assume he would prevent it from self-destructing prematurely. I don't mean to (or want to) bring religion in to prove my point, and I do realize I'm arguing out of necessity here, but I'm sorry, that's all I can offer you on that point.
Stop trying to disprove the Ice Shield theory. It is now invincible as religion has been brought into play. If God held the Ice Shield in place, not even logic can bring it down (in illogical minds). Also, in a broader sense, stop trying to disprove creationism or even suggest that it is less probable than evolution. It relies on faith and conjecture and is outside the realm of science. Applying science or logic to God will result in frustration. This debate has been held many times and a winner has not yet emerged nor will one.
ok, first, I think it's a good thought exercise to apply scientific principles to any given hypothesis. I'm doing this for me not to try to prove anything.
so lets look at magnetism.
The temperature of the sun is about 6,000 degrees C give or take. However the temperature of the corona, the layer of gas and charged particles just above the sun is over a million degrees.
why is this? Magnetism. the Sun has a strong magnetic field. this field excites the atoms in the corona and raises it's temperature. I would say though I can't back it up, but it acts much like a microwave oven does. flipping the atoms in the medium causing them to heat up. so, if the ice shield was being supported by a magnetic field, becuase the ice was magnetic, then the field would be causeing the atoms in the shiled to move and thus heat up. thus causing the shield to melt.
The greenhouse effect is caused by energy coming into the greenhouse as light. being absorbed by the things in the greenhouse and then being re emitted as infrared waves. which we feel as heat. the light can go thru the glass because the glass is transparent to light. the same can be said about CO2 and other green house gases. However the glass is not transparent to infrared radiation. so the sunlight comes in. gets turned to heat, and the heat is trapped by the glass, or the green house gases. so in the ice shield hypothesis, even if the light from the sun is able to get thru the transparent ice, it would still be turned into heat. that heat would not be able to pass thru the ice shield without effecting it. the earth would heat up and cause the shield to melt, or all the water on the planet to evaporate into the atmosphere and then the atmosphere would heat up as well. all life on the earth would die long before it started raining. and the shield would melt or explode. since as the temperature went up, so would the air pressure.
what will happen when a charged particle hits an ice atom in the ice shield? the atom will gain energy. that energy will be passed to other atoms and after this happens trillions of times a day, the over all energy level (the temperature) of the ice shiled will go up. causing it to melt and refreeze. which will cause the perfect ice to no longer be perfect ice.
what will happen when a charged particle hits an ice atom in the ice shield? the atom will gain energy. that energy will be passed to other atoms and after this happens trillions of times a day, the over all energy level (the temperature) of the ice shiled will go up. causing it to melt and refreeze. which will cause the perfect ice to no longer be perfect ice.
(of decent size)
so lets look at magnetism.
The temperature of the sun is about 6,000 degrees C give or take. However the temperature of the corona, the layer of gas and charged particles just above the sun is over a million degrees.
why is this? Magnetism. the Sun has a strong magnetic field. this field excites the atoms in the corona and raises it's temperature. I would say though I can't back it up, but it acts much like a microwave oven does. flipping the atoms in the medium causing them to heat up. so, if the ice shield was being supported by a magnetic field, becuase the ice was magnetic, then the field would be causeing the atoms in the shiled to move and thus heat up. thus causing the shield to melt.
The greenhouse effect is caused by energy coming into the greenhouse as light. being absorbed by the things in the greenhouse and then being re emitted as infrared waves. which we feel as heat. the light can go thru the glass because the glass is transparent to light. the same can be said about CO2 and other green house gases. However the glass is not transparent to infrared radiation. so the sunlight comes in. gets turned to heat, and the heat is trapped by the glass, or the green house gases. so in the ice shield hypothesis, even if the light from the sun is able to get thru the transparent ice, it would still be turned into heat. that heat would not be able to pass thru the ice shield without effecting it. the earth would heat up and cause the shield to melt, or all the water on the planet to evaporate into the atmosphere and then the atmosphere would heat up as well. all life on the earth would die long before it started raining. and the shield would melt or explode. since as the temperature went up, so would the air pressure.
QUOTE
I thought the solar wind was nothing but charged particles? Why exactly would charged particles cause the ice layer to collapse? I really don't understand your reasoning here.
what will happen when a charged particle hits an ice atom in the ice shield? the atom will gain energy. that energy will be passed to other atoms and after this happens trillions of times a day, the over all energy level (the temperature) of the ice shiled will go up. causing it to melt and refreeze. which will cause the perfect ice to no longer be perfect ice.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I thought the solar wind was nothing but charged particles? Why exactly would charged particles cause the ice layer to collapse? I really don't understand your reasoning here. |
what will happen when a charged particle hits an ice atom in the ice shield? the atom will gain energy. that energy will be passed to other atoms and after this happens trillions of times a day, the over all energy level (the temperature) of the ice shiled will go up. causing it to melt and refreeze. which will cause the perfect ice to no longer be perfect ice.
(of decent size)
even paticles of dust hitting the earth head on at speeds of over 20,000 miles per hour would pack a considerable punch. when you see a meteor at night as a bright streak, it's probably no bigger than a pebble. That pebble hitting the relativly soft atmosphere shines white hot (thousands of degrees) and is visible for miles around. imagine what would happen if that pebble instead hit an ice wall? there would be a considerable exchange of energy. I could calculate it with a little leg work, but I don't feel like putting that much effort into it.
especially if your going to play the God card anyway. Because if you want to play that game then why bother creating an ice shield anyway? the only reason for an ice shield is to add some kind of scientifc credibility to the flood. to answer where the water came from and how it could rain for 40 days and 40 nights world wide.
but if we're playing the god card anyway, we don't need a comet, we don't need an ice shiled. we don't need to explain where the water came from or where it went. we don't need to explain a mechanism at all. we simple say that it rained becuase god made it rain. the water came from God and it left because god willed it to do so. Noah and his family were able to breath in the super saturated atmosphere because God allowed them to do so. They were able to get all the animals there because god picked them up from all over the world and put them in the area so they could board the ark. God Gave noah crabs and lice (but only two of them) so we would have crabs and lice today and all of the animals didn't eat all of the other animals because god made them accept being cooped up in tight quarters with all the other animals for several months. and then god put all the animals into their contenants after they left since the earth looked exactly like it does now all the way back then. and then god made all of noahs children different colors and told them to go off in different directions so we'd have all the different races.
so if God makes all things possible, why are you even here? we either say God follows his own laws or he doesn't. If he doesn't then there is no need to discuss anything. God makes it all happen. If he does then we can have a conversation about how a flood could happen and how it couldn't. and I'm have to say, and it looks like you agree, that within the known laws of physics, and without divine intervention, the ice shield isn't possible.
and with devine intervention, the ice sheild isn't necessary.
so either way. I don't think the ice shield is a good hypothesis.
(see I can even punch holes in an invincible hypothesis)
especially if your going to play the God card anyway. Because if you want to play that game then why bother creating an ice shield anyway? the only reason for an ice shield is to add some kind of scientifc credibility to the flood. to answer where the water came from and how it could rain for 40 days and 40 nights world wide.
but if we're playing the god card anyway, we don't need a comet, we don't need an ice shiled. we don't need to explain where the water came from or where it went. we don't need to explain a mechanism at all. we simple say that it rained becuase god made it rain. the water came from God and it left because god willed it to do so. Noah and his family were able to breath in the super saturated atmosphere because God allowed them to do so. They were able to get all the animals there because god picked them up from all over the world and put them in the area so they could board the ark. God Gave noah crabs and lice (but only two of them) so we would have crabs and lice today and all of the animals didn't eat all of the other animals because god made them accept being cooped up in tight quarters with all the other animals for several months. and then god put all the animals into their contenants after they left since the earth looked exactly like it does now all the way back then. and then god made all of noahs children different colors and told them to go off in different directions so we'd have all the different races.
so if God makes all things possible, why are you even here? we either say God follows his own laws or he doesn't. If he doesn't then there is no need to discuss anything. God makes it all happen. If he does then we can have a conversation about how a flood could happen and how it couldn't. and I'm have to say, and it looks like you agree, that within the known laws of physics, and without divine intervention, the ice shield isn't possible.
and with devine intervention, the ice sheild isn't necessary.
so either way. I don't think the ice shield is a good hypothesis.
(see I can even punch holes in an invincible hypothesis)
To Drifter.. I have no intention of trying to flame anybody....But...
This eternal argument has already been proven. Religious people casually seem to blend Philosophy and Science into one argument. Not logically consistent. What physics (the study of our reality) is concerned with the real observable world. Science judges what is real by several criteria. It breaks down to this:
Things that are REAL are either made of or influenced by matter or energy.
Everything else is just imaginary. Meaning real things are made from matter or energy or influenced by either. Just because someone can envision in their minds eye a God or some spirit does not make it real. There are 100's of Gods that various people follow around the world. All claiming to be the one true God. All have absolutely zero evidence to back them up. Keep in mind just because you go to church all your life, sit in a room with a 100 people that all think like you, does not make it real. Just a collective delusion. A very nice delusion that addresses some of life’s mortal fears. Gives people hope in times of disparity to think some omnipotent being is watching them. Takes away the fear of death believing you will live forever in heaven (or whatever). I understand completely why so many people fall under the Creationist viewpoint. Peoples emotional needs get met with this belief system. But all that does not make it real outside of your cranial bones. None of what these people believe is observable, reproducible or quantifiable....thus unreal. People can believe that the earth is suspended in space on the back of an endless pile of turtles... They could possibly find other people who believe the same, form a group and call it a religion.. Does that make it real? Of course not... That is no different than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religions. All based on emotion as opposed to fact and observation.
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. But religious people argue using metaphors like facts. Seem to think they can actually argue their point using absolutely no fact. You can not argue reality with hopes and dreams. You can compare hopes and dreams to other hopes and dreams, that is all.
Just like Dr. Carl Sagan once said " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that a creator exists, certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim….where is your evidence. If you can not produce evidence it does not exist outside your philosophy. Since no evidence exists that proves or even hints to a creator. He does not exist in the real world. Does not exist anymore than a infinite pile of turtles.
This eternal argument has already been proven. Religious people casually seem to blend Philosophy and Science into one argument. Not logically consistent. What physics (the study of our reality) is concerned with the real observable world. Science judges what is real by several criteria. It breaks down to this:
Things that are REAL are either made of or influenced by matter or energy.
Everything else is just imaginary. Meaning real things are made from matter or energy or influenced by either. Just because someone can envision in their minds eye a God or some spirit does not make it real. There are 100's of Gods that various people follow around the world. All claiming to be the one true God. All have absolutely zero evidence to back them up. Keep in mind just because you go to church all your life, sit in a room with a 100 people that all think like you, does not make it real. Just a collective delusion. A very nice delusion that addresses some of life’s mortal fears. Gives people hope in times of disparity to think some omnipotent being is watching them. Takes away the fear of death believing you will live forever in heaven (or whatever). I understand completely why so many people fall under the Creationist viewpoint. Peoples emotional needs get met with this belief system. But all that does not make it real outside of your cranial bones. None of what these people believe is observable, reproducible or quantifiable....thus unreal. People can believe that the earth is suspended in space on the back of an endless pile of turtles... They could possibly find other people who believe the same, form a group and call it a religion.. Does that make it real? Of course not... That is no different than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religions. All based on emotion as opposed to fact and observation.
I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. But religious people argue using metaphors like facts. Seem to think they can actually argue their point using absolutely no fact. You can not argue reality with hopes and dreams. You can compare hopes and dreams to other hopes and dreams, that is all.
Just like Dr. Carl Sagan once said " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that a creator exists, certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim….where is your evidence. If you can not produce evidence it does not exist outside your philosophy. Since no evidence exists that proves or even hints to a creator. He does not exist in the real world. Does not exist anymore than a infinite pile of turtles.
heh heh.....
"It's turtles all the way down!"
"It's turtles all the way down!"
godel wrote a paper in 1972 filling in leibniz's proff. 
After reading all of this, can someone help me understand how a simple cell with all of its interconnected organelles could have evolved, when if one organelle is removed, the cell would not function?
Or why as I learned in my geology class there is no evidence of the Primordial "goo" layer in the Earth's strata from the time period that is supposed to have existed, or any time period at all. Also, why does the evidence point to the fact that the rocks from the early earth strata have too high of a level of oxygen compared to the theorized low levels needed to have allowed life to begin on its own?
signed -- confused...
Or why as I learned in my geology class there is no evidence of the Primordial "goo" layer in the Earth's strata from the time period that is supposed to have existed, or any time period at all. Also, why does the evidence point to the fact that the rocks from the early earth strata have too high of a level of oxygen compared to the theorized low levels needed to have allowed life to begin on its own?
signed -- confused...
Dear Confused.
Fact or fiction about the rocks that you stated.
Prove it and then it can be explained to you.
Welcome to the chat about this. YOU MUST HAVE PROFF
Fact or fiction about the rocks that you stated.
Prove it and then it can be explained to you.
Welcome to the chat about this. YOU MUST HAVE PROFF
QUOTE (Help Me Understand this Madness?+Dec 22 2004, 05:44 PM)
After reading all of this, can someone help me understand how a simple cell with all of its interconnected organelles could have evolved, when if one organelle is removed, the cell would not function?
Or why as I learned in my geology class there is no evidence of the Primordial "goo" layer in the Earth's strata from the time period that is supposed to have existed, or any time period at all. Also, why does the evidence point to the fact that the rocks from the early earth strata have too high of a level of oxygen compared to the theorized low levels needed to have allowed life to begin on its own?
signed -- confused...
well I had a decent explaination to this, but then my wife called me and I lost it.
and I don't really feel like typing it all out again.
so I guess I conceed. evolution is complete bunk. God made everything and the best thing I can hope for now is an eternity of telling god how great he is.
I blame my wife for this.
Or why as I learned in my geology class there is no evidence of the Primordial "goo" layer in the Earth's strata from the time period that is supposed to have existed, or any time period at all. Also, why does the evidence point to the fact that the rocks from the early earth strata have too high of a level of oxygen compared to the theorized low levels needed to have allowed life to begin on its own?
signed -- confused...
well I had a decent explaination to this, but then my wife called me and I lost it.
and I don't really feel like typing it all out again.
so I guess I conceed. evolution is complete bunk. God made everything and the best thing I can hope for now is an eternity of telling god how great he is.
I blame my wife for this.
ok, I take back my concession.
here's a site that talks about Millers experiment. I'm sure this is the one you're referring to when you said that the early atmosphere had too much o2.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...oBookCELL1.html
but what this says basically is that simple inorganic molecules, can form more complex organic chemicals and can do so rather easily.
basically what happened then is that the basic nucleotides started to form. which as nucleotides are prone to do started making long chains of them selves. to form nucleic acid.
if you put nucleic acid in a giant ocean full of amino acids, they start to make proteins.
some of the proteins form shells around the nucleic acid, thus a really basic cell. or more proabaly what we today would call a virus. we know if we put all the parts of a virus into a container and shake well. they will put themselves together to make a virus.
so we have lots of different shells floating around with nucleic acid and other chemicals inside. different ones are doing different things. they absorb chemicals from the water around them and organize these chemicals into more of what they are. membranes grow, and eventually a membrane grabs some other shell doing something else. and the two start doing what they do inside the same shell. and this causes the shells to split with the nucliec acid to do what both of them did in both cells. and they split again and soon there are lots of these shells around doing what they do. and the process repeats itself over and over again over millions of years. after many splits, some cells do what they do better than other cells do to random changes to the oder of the nucleotids. some find better ways to make better protiens. some find better ways to make more nucleotides (how many different ways can I spell the same word?) this happens in lots of different shells at the same time, and each family of shells has different abilities. eventually like all things do, they start absorbing each other more and more, and when they do, and they absorb something that survives and helps the new shell. then the two become one and after many many generations they work together more and more to the point that they couldn't survive without each other. which again gives them an advantage over other shells that don't work together. only the fittest survive and move on. somewhere in here the cell becomes alive. when, who knows.
but it's not like a modern cell just popped out of the ooze one day. it was a long and slow process with subtle changes every few hundred years or so making things better making subtle improvments. It's not like a cell can exist without a chloroplast or without mitochondria. but they make the cells work better and thus make them more likely to reproduce. all the organelles in a modern cell were likely at one point or another seperate shells that were good at doing something, and could divide. over time once they were incorperated into another shell, they lost their need to be able to divide or it got incorperated into the matrix of DNA or RNA that was coding the proteins. It would appear that mitochondria was it's own shell not too long ago (a few billion years give or take) since it still has it's own dna. or maybe it just joined differently. it's hard to say. but it's not hard to imagine.
it's not hard to beleive.
it's much easier to beleive than saying that one day out of the blue a omnipotent being popped out of the aether and decided that he was going to make him self a universe. and in the middle of this vast universe, he was going to make one planet with life on it and then sit back and watch the life onit kill itself over and over again in his name. I think If I took all the trouble in making my own life forms, I'd interact with them more. why leave all the doubt?
but, I have a question for you?
if we put all these chemicals in a test tube and it started making primitive cells that were able to divide on their own into copies of themselves, would that make you doubt your faith? I some how doubt it. and that's fine. you are free to beleive what you want to beleive.
though I'd be interested in seeing some source for your information, and I'd also be interested in hearing how much homework you've done on your own before you came here and posed these questions.
here's a site that talks about Millers experiment. I'm sure this is the one you're referring to when you said that the early atmosphere had too much o2.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabe...oBookCELL1.html
but what this says basically is that simple inorganic molecules, can form more complex organic chemicals and can do so rather easily.
basically what happened then is that the basic nucleotides started to form. which as nucleotides are prone to do started making long chains of them selves. to form nucleic acid.
if you put nucleic acid in a giant ocean full of amino acids, they start to make proteins.
some of the proteins form shells around the nucleic acid, thus a really basic cell. or more proabaly what we today would call a virus. we know if we put all the parts of a virus into a container and shake well. they will put themselves together to make a virus.
so we have lots of different shells floating around with nucleic acid and other chemicals inside. different ones are doing different things. they absorb chemicals from the water around them and organize these chemicals into more of what they are. membranes grow, and eventually a membrane grabs some other shell doing something else. and the two start doing what they do inside the same shell. and this causes the shells to split with the nucliec acid to do what both of them did in both cells. and they split again and soon there are lots of these shells around doing what they do. and the process repeats itself over and over again over millions of years. after many splits, some cells do what they do better than other cells do to random changes to the oder of the nucleotids. some find better ways to make better protiens. some find better ways to make more nucleotides (how many different ways can I spell the same word?) this happens in lots of different shells at the same time, and each family of shells has different abilities. eventually like all things do, they start absorbing each other more and more, and when they do, and they absorb something that survives and helps the new shell. then the two become one and after many many generations they work together more and more to the point that they couldn't survive without each other. which again gives them an advantage over other shells that don't work together. only the fittest survive and move on. somewhere in here the cell becomes alive. when, who knows.
but it's not like a modern cell just popped out of the ooze one day. it was a long and slow process with subtle changes every few hundred years or so making things better making subtle improvments. It's not like a cell can exist without a chloroplast or without mitochondria. but they make the cells work better and thus make them more likely to reproduce. all the organelles in a modern cell were likely at one point or another seperate shells that were good at doing something, and could divide. over time once they were incorperated into another shell, they lost their need to be able to divide or it got incorperated into the matrix of DNA or RNA that was coding the proteins. It would appear that mitochondria was it's own shell not too long ago (a few billion years give or take) since it still has it's own dna. or maybe it just joined differently. it's hard to say. but it's not hard to imagine.
it's not hard to beleive.
it's much easier to beleive than saying that one day out of the blue a omnipotent being popped out of the aether and decided that he was going to make him self a universe. and in the middle of this vast universe, he was going to make one planet with life on it and then sit back and watch the life onit kill itself over and over again in his name. I think If I took all the trouble in making my own life forms, I'd interact with them more. why leave all the doubt?
but, I have a question for you?
if we put all these chemicals in a test tube and it started making primitive cells that were able to divide on their own into copies of themselves, would that make you doubt your faith? I some how doubt it. and that's fine. you are free to beleive what you want to beleive.
though I'd be interested in seeing some source for your information, and I'd also be interested in hearing how much homework you've done on your own before you came here and posed these questions.
avraham rosenblum...Are you a mathmatician or lay person? I am a physicist . I am familiar with Godel's work . I am skilled in advanced mathematics, such as discreet mathematics, all flavours of Calculus, Tautology methodology. In my more stuidious days I have encountered Mr. Godels work. No matter how you look at it. It takes a leap of faith. You can create the most elaborate , intricate, complex calculations to prove that God exists.. His primary assumptions are flawed. No one in the scientific community takes this as a serious tautology. If the initial condition is faulty, all the elegance in the world will not save it.
There are a number of ways to describe the ontological argument. One way to do so is through reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”). In a reductio ad absurdum argument, the negation (opposite) of the conclusion is assumed, and then demonstrated that the opposite of this conclusion leads to an absurdity (such as a contradiction). Incidentally, Anselm himself used a reductio ad absurdum argument in the book Proslogion to explain his ontological argument.
If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone [and not in reality], then this thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than that which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality.
To explain this sort of thing more clearly, I’ve written a similar version of this argument (which has paraphrased significant amounts of what Anselm wrote):
(1) God is that which nothing greater is possible (from Anselm), i.e. the greatest possible being (by definition).
(2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality (also from Anselm). That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
(3) If something exists only in the mind (i.e. does not actually exist) but is possible (in the sense that was defined in 2), then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind (i.e. a nonexistent, imaginary mountain) might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
(4) Suppose God (the greatest possible being, from 1) exists only in the mind and not in reality (i.e. God does not actually exist; which is the negation of what this argument attempts to prove).
(5) Then there is a possible being (from 2 and 3) that is greater (than the being in 4), namely God existing in reality.
(6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God (from 5).
(7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible (from 1), then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible (from 6).
Conclusion: Statement 7 is absurd. It can’t possibly be true because it is self-contradictory. Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
This is just a brief explanation, but you can see how this proves absolutely nothing. No matter how nice looking your symbolic logic is..
There are a number of ways to describe the ontological argument. One way to do so is through reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”). In a reductio ad absurdum argument, the negation (opposite) of the conclusion is assumed, and then demonstrated that the opposite of this conclusion leads to an absurdity (such as a contradiction). Incidentally, Anselm himself used a reductio ad absurdum argument in the book Proslogion to explain his ontological argument.
If therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone [and not in reality], then this thing than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than that which a greater can be conceived. And this is clearly impossible. Therefore, there can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in reality.
To explain this sort of thing more clearly, I’ve written a similar version of this argument (which has paraphrased significant amounts of what Anselm wrote):
(1) God is that which nothing greater is possible (from Anselm), i.e. the greatest possible being (by definition).
(2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality (also from Anselm). That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
(3) If something exists only in the mind (i.e. does not actually exist) but is possible (in the sense that was defined in 2), then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind (i.e. a nonexistent, imaginary mountain) might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
(4) Suppose God (the greatest possible being, from 1) exists only in the mind and not in reality (i.e. God does not actually exist; which is the negation of what this argument attempts to prove).
(5) Then there is a possible being (from 2 and 3) that is greater (than the being in 4), namely God existing in reality.
(6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God (from 5).
(7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible (from 1), then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible (from 6).
Conclusion: Statement 7 is absurd. It can’t possibly be true because it is self-contradictory. Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
This is just a brief explanation, but you can see how this proves absolutely nothing. No matter how nice looking your symbolic logic is..
all I think about when I read that is can god create a rock he cannot lift.
not that this adds anything to the conversation. but what the hey, I got an hour left to kill and I don't feel like doing any work.
though I will say that is an excellent summary.
not that this adds anything to the conversation. but what the hey, I got an hour left to kill and I don't feel like doing any work.
though I will say that is an excellent summary.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.