Creation & Evolution OFFICIAL DEBATE

[wizardofid]

<rubs his hands together...>

The big bang theory

I don’t find this to hard to believe, however till this is proven wrong I will believe in its logic. To some people this seems very hard to grasp one should read the theory from the beginning to understand where this all comes from. People who are still in the dark about what this theory is all about in short the theory believes that the universe was started by the explosion of a singularity (a single particle) or matter another version believes it was a huge rock that exploded and expanded to become the universe as we know it today. However both believe that in the explosion new matter was created the “basic elements” have a look at your table of elements note however this is no way near complete as it’s very possible for other elements to exist some where else in this universe.

The Big Bang still has problems and has been in trouble for some while now as:
1) The universal expansion is in fact *accelrating* the further out you go, (based on observations of red shift on outlying galaxies, etc..). If the bang is done and dusted, where is this additional energy coming from?
2) In any explosion the fragements move in straight lines, not circles, so why does everything insist on spinning?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from... ?

The theory states further that the universe is still expanding but it’s on the slow down in other words is losing its expansive power. Now some thing that’s seems very logic if you know your laws of relativity is that the universe will one day stop expanding and finally collapse back into the former state of being a singularity. In other words it means the end of the universe ,but by that time we on earth might be long time dead if the sun doesn’t do it for us which could be possibly be tied in with the book of revelations.

Can you proviode evidence of this slow down? The number of problems facing the theory seem to grow incrementally..

One theory which comes close to explaining most of this is continuous creation.. with a universe being "birthed" through a black hole, essentially "inheriting" the phycsical characteristics of its parent. Such a universe would exhibit all the evidence of an explosion, (ala Big Bang), with all the characteristics of a "puddle" , where matter would conform to something approaching fluid dynamics, spinning in circles, clumping in some places and not others, where the "edge" would expand at an increasing rate as the "puddle" spreads, space is curved, etc, etc, etc...

(hey... I can simplify... creatively... )

You just proved to me you know very little and just stated random facts to make it look important. But it isn’t really.
Just to state again the universe was not created out of a black hole but out of a singularity when the universe collapses that will be a black hole……Do you even know how a black hole works I know off hand you would need to do an engine search to be able to tell me? Now that’s funny

What do understand when it comes to the “red shift” and “blue shift” without doing an engine search? Oh and there is some thing called a blue shift which you happen to leave out??? I wonder why
I will be willing to explain to you in layman terms but that might take a while since your dumb enough to believe that an explosion would move in straight lines in vacuum with little to none gravity.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from...?Um once again your dumb enough once again to use physics that apply to earth and a few other places. You really need to go and read the laws of relativity. I refer you to the matter of one so called black hole. One of the very basics laws state that every Positive would mathematically have a equal negative doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s possible a good example would be matter = anti-matter and yes there is something like anti-matter some thing you didn’t know as well I guess.

I just notice something your nothing with out your little search bar. Sorry to be so rude.

(hey….I can call you dumb……creatively… )

Wow you would think you created the universe or something.

First the universe will not collapse. It will decay. Spare me the conservation of mass and energy arguement unless you really want to get into it.

Yes there is antimatter and the only reason you exist is because of a slight imbalance so lets not make to much of it.

Where did the energy come from? Collision of "nothings"? Vacuum fluctuations over a seemingly infinite period?

Relativity does not exist before planck time.

Spare me the conservation of mass and energy arguement unless you really want to get into it.

No, it's a fun topic but this is not the place to discuss it.

Yes there is antimatter and the only reason you exist is because of a slight imbalance so lets not make to much of it

Perhaps but that might be our missing link to every thing.And still so little known about it.

What is the equal negative of relativity then?

[rustypup]

<laughs with scorn ...>

You just proved to me you know very little and just stated random facts to make it look important. But it isn’t really.
Just to state again the universe was not created out of a black hole but out of a singularity when the universe collapses that will be a black hole……Do you even know how a black hole works I know off hand you would need to do an engine search to be able to tell me? Now that’s funny

do you understand how a black hole works? AFAIK they remain theoretical.... unless you have studied them in the wild, in which case were do I hand in my application to join the team... I have one or two vict... err... test subjects I'd like to subject to further testing... the universe, according to this point, cannot therefore contain any black hole... but it does, so <pop> goes that soap bubble...

What do understand when it comes to the “red shift” and “blue shift” without doing an engine search? Oh and there is some thing called a blue shift which you happen to leave out??? I wonder why
I will be willing to explain to you in layman terms but that might take a while since your dumb enough to believe that an explosion would move in straight lines in vacuum with little to none gravity.

if by blue shift you are publicly admitting to playing Half Life, I applaud you sir... otherwise, please feel free to point to a *reliable* source which proves that the blue shift argument is nothing other than conjecture, (be warned.... there is a glaring flaw in the argument... but that's not my problem...). Secondly, why would matter move in circles just becuse the explosion happens in a near vacuum, (space is not as pure a vacuum as you presume.... ) What has that got to do with anything... the force vectors remain even more constant in a vacuum than elsewhere, so why raise the point... unless you are privy to some scrap of arcane knowledge not shared by us lesser heretics...

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from...?Um once again your dumb enough once again to use physics that apply to earth and a few other places.

noo.... this particular one remains valid no matter where you are standing... I challenge you, sir, to *create* some form of energy out of nothing, thereby proving your fellow heretics have been lying all along and deserve to be put to the flame.........

You really need to go and read the laws of relativity. I refer you to the matter of one so called black hole. One of the very basics laws state that every Positive would mathematically have a equal negative doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s possible a good example would be matter = anti-matter and yes there is something like anti-matter some thing you didn’t know as well I guess.

quantam mechanic are we??? surely not... please name, in alphabetical order, all the properties of even one of these.... a challenge cunningly designed to have you actually do some research into a field which has baffled greater minds than ours for far longer and should not be tossed about as if it were a soiled crumpet... have some respect... apart from the fact that this particular avenue of science bares all the hallmarks of another phlogiston theory

I just notice something your nothing with out your little search bar. Sorry to be so rude.

(hey….I can call you dumb……creatively… )

be warned... I only need to search a particular subject title to provide some reading matter... I, however, prefer the far more challenging and approved method of aquiring knowledge... ie.. reading actual books, (those papery things you use to prop up your Half Life action figures... ).

<aah... the cut and thrust on not-so intelligent debate>

[wizardofid]

<laughs with scorn ...>

You just proved to me you know very little and just stated random facts to make it look important. But it isn’t really.
Just to state again the universe was not created out of a black hole but out of a singularity when the universe collapses that will be a black hole……Do you even know how a black hole works I know off hand you would need to do an engine search to be able to tell me? Now that’s funny

do you understand how a black hole works? AFAIK they remain theoretical.... unless you have studied them in the wild, in which case were do I hand in my application to join the team... I have one or two vict... err... test subjects I'd like to subject to further testing... the universe, according to this point, cannot therefore contain any black hole... but it does, so <pop> goes that soap bubble...

What do understand when it comes to the “red shift” and “blue shift” without doing an engine search? Oh and there is some thing called a blue shift which you happen to leave out??? I wonder why
I will be willing to explain to you in layman terms but that might take a while since your dumb enough to believe that an explosion would move in straight lines in vacuum with little to none gravity.

if by blue shift you are publicly admitting to playing Half Life, I applaud you sir... otherwise, please feel free to point to a *reliable* source which proves that the blue shift argument is nothing other than conjecture, (be warned.... there is a glaring flaw in the argument... but that's not my problem...). Secondly, why would matter move in circles just becuse the explosion happens in a near vacuum, (space is not as pure a vacuum as you presume.... ) What has that got to do with anything... the force vectors remain even more constant in a vacuum than elsewhere, so why raise the point... unless you are privy to some scrap of arcane knowledge not shared by us lesser heretics...

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from...?Um once again your dumb enough once again to use physics that apply to earth and a few other places.

noo.... this particular one remains valid no matter where you are standing... I challenge you, sir, to *create* some form of energy out of nothing, thereby proving your fellow heretics have been lying all along and deserve to be put to the flame.........

You really need to go and read the laws of relativity. I refer you to the matter of one so called black hole. One of the very basics laws state that every Positive would mathematically have a equal negative doesn’t mean it’s true but it’s possible a good example would be matter = anti-matter and yes there is something like anti-matter some thing you didn’t know as well I guess.

quantam mechanic are we??? surely not... please name, in alphabetical order, all the properties of even one of these.... a challenge cunningly designed to have you actually do some research into a field which has baffled greater minds than ours for far longer and should not be tossed about as if it were a soiled crumpet... have some respect... apart from the fact that this particular avenue of science bares all the hallmarks of another phlogiston theory

I just notice something your nothing with out your little search bar. Sorry to be so rude.

(hey….I can call you dumb……creatively… )

be warned... I only need to search a particular subject title to provide some reading matter... I, however, prefer the far more challenging and approved method of aquiring knowledge... ie.. reading actual books, (those papery things you use to prop up your Half Life action figures... ).

<aah... the cut and thrust on not-so intelligent debate>

I will reply as soon as I can....

*Edit* You gave a very valid response and anwsered my questions in a good manner some thing I need to give you aswell.

And you do know alot. By the way how did you know I played blueshift
On that matter I'm not sure I understand you are you saying there's a flaw in the "Doppler effect"
Once again I have to Apologize for my rudeness and give the subject the respect it needs okay

So are we rather going to leave this where it is cause I really don't want this to end in flame.?

[QBM]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist it is the ultimate question.

[QBM]

Spare me the conservation of mass and energy arguement unless you really want to get into it.

No, it's a fun topic but this is not the place to discuss it.

Yes there is antimatter and the only reason you exist is because of a slight imbalance so lets not make to much of it

Perhaps but that might be our missing link to every thing.And still so little known about it.

What is the equal negative of relativity then?[/quote]

Missing link? Not really.....a piece of the "missing chain" possibly. Of course we know how it should behave. Just like matter of course. If it doesn't there are theories that rely on that to. Establishing either behaviour would not complete any theory afaik.

Luckily we can now "create" it and will soon find out.......unless of course we cease to exist on the next collider run.

PSA: Scientist...don't **** with antimatter or ZPE for you are indeed entering God's realm wether realistically or metaphorically. Yeah I know the pope has said it to people like Hawkings before but this time the truth should be obvious. 8O

Next step or possibly the first the tree of life, huh ripper?

Edit: Also would you care to explain equal negative relativity?:D

[RuadRauFlessa]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

[wizardofid]

Missing link? Not really.....a piece of the "missing chain" possibly. Of course we know how it should behave. Just like matter of course. If it doesn't there are theories that rely on that to. Establishing either behaviour would not complete any theory afaik.

Luckily we can now "create" it and will soon find out.......unless of course we cease to exist on the next collider run.

PSA: Scientist...don't **** with antimatter or ZPE

[rustypup]

On that matter I'm not sure I understand you are you saying there's a flaw in the "Doppler effect"

no flaw in the doppler affect, flaw in the whole blue shift vs red shift debate... namely, that the only way in which quasar type objects could be viewed locally and STILL produce the red shift effect is if the objects energy projects away from the observer... clearly a teeny bit nuts as that would require that ALL quasars recorded to date have met this requirement...

Once again I have to Apologize for my rudeness and give the subject the respect it needs okay

please dont! respect is the last thing this subject needs... it requires creative reasoning... if everyone believed the same thing, all advancement would cease...


(oh... this would never have become a flame... my sense of humour does not carry the same inflections in typing... )

[QBM]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

You said you need to know the answer to formulate questions. Knowing where god came from would just make you formulate questions beyond that answer. Do you really have a problem formulating more basic questions without knowing where God came from?

[wizardofid]

On that matter I'm not sure I understand you are you saying there's a flaw in the "Doppler effect"

no flaw in the doppler affect, flaw in the whole blue shift vs red shift debate... namely, that the only way in which quasar type objects could be viewed locally and STILL produce the red shift effect is if the objects energy projects away from the observer... clearly a teeny bit nuts as that would require that ALL quasars recorded to date have met this requirement...

Once again I have to Apologize for my rudeness and give the subject the respect it needs okay

please dont! respect is the last thing this subject needs... it requires creative reasoning... if everyone believed the same thing, all advancement would cease...


(oh... this would never have become a flame... my sense of humour does not carry the same inflections in typing... )

cool

[RuadRauFlessa]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

You said you need to know the answer to formulate questions. Knowing where god came from would just make you formulate questions beyond that answer. Do you really have a problem formulating more basic questions without knowing where God came from?

Yes because the answer of the question would have relevance to the whole issue of evolution. It would also answer the question of wether he actually exists. Not that we would like to make this a religeous thread. The only thing standing against evolution is in fact religious point of view.

[wizardofid]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

You said you need to know the answer to formulate questions. Knowing where god came from would just make you formulate questions beyond that answer. Do you really have a problem formulating more basic questions without knowing where God came from?

Yes because the answer of the question would have relevance to the whole issue of evolution. It would also answer the question of wether he actually exists. Not that we would like to make this a religeous thread. The only thing standing against evolution is in fact religious point of view.

Very true, but what fun would it be if we knew every thing ?

[RuadRauFlessa]

For one thing we would have less flame wars. lol

But then again you have a point. Like in the hitchhikers guide where the doctors created artificual deseases because life became too dull once they rid the universe of all ilness.

[wizardofid]

For one thing we would have less flame wars. lol

But then again you have a point. Like in the hitchhikers guide where the doctors created artificual deseases because life became too dull once they rid the universe of all ilness.

I should get around to reading the book 8O But I'm behind on the dark tower series so it's gonna take awhile till I get there.

[QBM]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

You said you need to know the answer to formulate questions. Knowing where god came from would just make you formulate questions beyond that answer. Do you really have a problem formulating more basic questions without knowing where God came from?

Yes because the answer of the question would have relevance to the whole issue of evolution. It would also answer the question of wether he actually exists. Not that we would like to make this a religeous thread. The only thing standing against evolution is in fact religious point of view.

How would knowing where "God" came from have any effect on evolution unless he was an evolutionary product himself.

It doesn't matter at this point weather he exist or not unless when you figure it out he says "oh ***** you guys found me. What questions do you have?".

The religous point of view does not stand in the way of evolution. Evolutions gaps and questions are its own and nothing other than those gaps andquestions stand in the way. The funny thing about the religous point of view is it will just get a longer stick to hang the carrot from. You climb Mt. Olympus and then.............................

[wizardofid]

yeah and I didn't ask what the answer to life the universe and everything else is but where God came from. Which is a, sccording to most, a verry fundamental question. As you so elegantly put it.

No if he exist he it is the ultimate question.

I didn't say the ultimate question I said fundamental

You said you need to know the answer to formulate questions. Knowing where god came from would just make you formulate questions beyond that answer. Do you really have a problem formulating more basic questions without knowing where God came from?

Yes because the answer of the question would have relevance to the whole issue of evolution. It would also answer the question of wether he actually exists. Not that we would like to make this a religeous thread. The only thing standing against evolution is in fact religious point of view.

How would knowing where "God" came from have any effect on evolution unless he was an evolutionary product himself.

It doesn't matter at this point wether he exist or not unless when you figure it out he says "oh **** you guys found me. What questions do you have?".

The religous point of view does not stand in the way of evolution. Evolutions gaps and questions are its own and nothing other than those gaps andquestions stand in the way. The funny thing about the religous point of view is it will just get a longer stick to hang the carrot from. You climb Mt. Olympus and then.............................

Bam! then the thunder bolt strikes you....

[QBM]

Bam! then the thunder bolt strikes you....

now I'm off to sleep..................

[Moses]

Perhaps it is worth remembering that the Catholic church see's no problem with evolution. So if you say evolution is crap, you are calling John Paul II and Pius XII a liar.

[capanno]

Well then maybe I am calling him a lier! LOL!

Someone said that religion is thing that is against evolution. Thats not true. Even science has problems with evolution! Like the big bang theory that was described earlier.

(This will be the fourth time I post this, still no answer... Maybe QBM will have some answers for me)

In the geologic column (which doesnt exist anywhere in real life) and in rock layers, there are these layers. They are clear and doesnt fade from one to the next. There are clear diffrences. If evolution is true, and these layers are diffrent ages, why arent they fading, like they should do, and why arent there erosion marks between them? Did it rain ash for a million years, cleared, baked it to stone, and a nice clean layer of red sand for example got on top of it? Theres a problem here. They even found fossilized trees standing through countless layers. Some say they grew through solid rock , others say it stood there for tens of millions of years as the layers formed around it . I find that hard to believe, as they found thousands of trees from the same forest scattered through diffrent layers, and they were upside down. OOH now we have a big problem. This fits with ease with creation. The flood...

The other thing is fossils. If they were indeed evolving, we would find hordes of missing links. We would have had trouble finding a genuine species! Not only are there a total lack of missing links, the ones created were frauds and lies. Lucy, the so called missing link, was made out of scraps of bone found over a huge area. They werent even from the same body. For some reason, the evolutionists with their amazing technology, recreated this thing from those bones. They even put on human feet. Thats crap! This same thing happened with all missing links...

Another thing is grand canyon. Theres no way that the colorado river made that canyon. Go look at the geology, and you'll see that grand canyon is a dam breach. It was formed quickly, hence the straight cliffs. The level at which the river enters the canyon is over 1000 feet lower than the top of the canyon. Rivers dont flow uphill. Grand canyon is an icon for evolution. They say the river carved the canyon from sollid rock over millions of years. That pure lieing!

OK so Im STILL waiting for an answer on page 7 I think, and I can predict that I wont get an answer for this either. It happened 3 times before, and Im really getting tired of it!

[Moses]

You are not getting as answer because you have just copied and pasted someone else's throughly debunked argument. Would you care to explain how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics in your OWN words? A quick google will reveal the answers to the questions you seek.

[Anakha56]

cap what was your question again? page 7 doesnt seem to have a question.

[capanno]

Page 5.. sorry.

Moses, are you telling me that everything you know you thought up by yourself? Damn your good!

[Moses]

No, but I am very smart. I filter knowledge based not on what I want to believe, but what is more credible.

[lancelot]

wizardofid, don'y know how far you are in the Dark Tower series, but it is going to dissapoint!

[Y0da]

*Sigh* Capanno all you are doing is throwing age old propaganda in the air. Your arguments are pointless to say the least. Humour and educate us and include some links to these 'scientific facts'.

Example :

According to http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp something representing a geolical column does excist in certain places but not to the extend that the anti-creationists build their hypothesis on. All ten superposed Phanerozoic systems are present at these locations BUT they are not complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. So this means that a complete geological column has not yet been dicovered even at places where they should be and is more proof that there are flaws in the theory of evolution.

See that is how you debate. You quote a source, give your iterpretation and then reach a conclusion. You don't just ramble on about your personal beliefs and call everyone liars.