logo Sign In

Myths — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Thanks Shimmy, that's a good post.

I read up on recent entropy theories, and that is very interesting. It seems (with a cursory understanding) that for the theory to work, a system (life form) would need to absorb energy for a short time; to configure more complex proteins and such, to reach a state where it can then equalize faster. This does not seem logical to me; if you have a tub of water with two exit spouts, one higher and larger than the other, the water will not flow up to the larger spout simply because it can exit the tub faster from there, and in the long run drain the tub faster and obey the law of gravity faster. In the same way, it seems unlikely that heat/energy would flow into a system or molecule to accelerate long term dissipation. If you have a heated cabin in the middle of a snowy forest, the heat is not going to localize on a window to melt a hole in the glass so that it can ultimately exit the cabin faster.

But, as I said, I have a cursory understanding of the new perspective on thermodynamics. Definitely worth delving into.

There is the disjoint between biology (progression towards order) and thermodynamics (progression towards disorder). This new perspective on thermodynamics resolves them by proposing a short term or localized movement towards order in the midst of a long-term or large scale movement towards disorder. The other possible resolution is that biology is not moving toward order but disorder. If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.

While the first step in that reasoning may be ok, I know under current theories (creation/evolution) the conclusion is harder to take. Let me just say, it's ok to say "we don't know." No one is going to force you to support creationism if you question evolution (or if they do, that's unfair). I'm not arguing for God here, I'm just offering some points on evolution that don't always get mentioned, and I think have some validity. Or at least are worth addressing.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
I know what your saying starboy. I just last week had a talk with my chem prof about entropy and how it works. the basic idea is that the entropy of the universe always increase or remains the same, it will never decrease, it does this according to the formula Entropy = Energy(J)s / Temperature(K), now you can do anything you want in a reaction as long as it follows to rule that i jsut stated. here i'll put forward an experiment for you. if you were to take 1 ml of water at 0 C and you added it to 1 ml at 100 C you would get a 2 ml solution that is at 50 C. That process will increase to order of the universe, however you had the 100 C water going to a state that was less random.

Quote
If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.


Forgive me i dont understand your logic here. What points to a more complex biological history?
Author
Time
Post link
I really should correct myself. I said we owe the lighthouse to Fresnel's lens - but that isn't really true, he designed it for lighthouses.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.


Forgive me i dont understand your logic here. What points to a more complex biological history?


I don't have a hard and fast point, nothing scientific, just an observation. Sometimes as you look around it seems that life in general is degrading rather than evolving. It seems like more stuff is dying out than is developing. It seems like the human genome is getting more disease prone and more unstable rather than evolving to a higher state. There are of course lots of different possible reasons and a myriad of competing factors in that, so it's not an argument. Just food for thought.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
Destruction is the single most act of Creation.
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
Author
Time
Post link
True, but remember that destruction itself is a myth; the Law of Transformation states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Nothing larger than a quark is indestructible, though. You have to get really tiny for matter not to break.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I read my way through this site yesterday:

http://www.reachingforchrist.org/apologetics/fallacies.php

Most of which I've heard before, there are some very good points made, though. Now I know that the big bang, the "spark of life" etc etc are not actually part of the theory of evolution, but it does depend on them to some extent. For instance, Evolutionists believe the Earth is billions of years old (despite the fact it doesn't look that old and various other problems that contradict their dating methods).

"It is also commonly asserted by evolutionists that it takes at least a hundred thousand years for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf. That is also patently false. Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. describe Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 B.C. stated that Sirius is red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D. Today, Sirius is a white dwarf. (Paul Ackerman, It's A Young World)"

"Dr. Ernst Mayr, one of the world's leading evolutionists has stated in debate with Dr. Duane Gish that if it could be proven that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously, the "theory" of evolution would have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCIENCE. Just recently (1997) over two hundred pounds of frozen, UNFOSSILIZED dinosaur bones were found in Alaska and in some of these bones red blood cells, hemoglobin, and DNA were found. According to the evolutionary theory the last dinosaur lived about 62 million years ago. How could collagen, DNA, proteins, red blood cells, and hemoglobin be preserved for 65 million years?

...

"Svante Paabo has done extensive research on the decay of the DNA structure and has analyzed mitochondrial DNA in a "Neanderthal" skeleton. In Scientific American Mag. in an article entitled "Ancient DNA," Paablo has concluded that even without water and oxygen at all, background radiation would erase all traces of DNA in 50,000 years. Others give a figure of a 10,000 year survival rate for DNA. (Nature, August 1, 1991, Vol. 352, p.381) Still far less than the 65 million years that evolutionists need."


Upon further research it became apparent that there have been other cases of dinosaur bones found in the 90's that had not completely fossilized. That simple fact alone is enough to show the specimens are not millions of years old. You could also look at an article which targets only the dino issue:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i8f.htm

Anyhow, as you can see there is no real explanation as to how red blood cells could be so old. The theory for evolutionists is perhaps they are not red blood cells at all (but that can't be proven), or perhaps they're foreign cells not from dino's. In either case, it would disprove the theory of radiometric dating altogether, for the simple fact that these specimens are either not the age they should be, or they have been demonstratably contaminated. That is to say if the red blood cells are foreign, than the samples are contaminated and thus disproves radiometric dating, and if they're not then the dinos are much younger than 65 millions years old - and again disproves radiometric dating.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Starboy
Quote
If you assume the atom as the starting point and look at the present, then biology must be increasing in order. But if you look at things like rate of extinction compared to rate of species generation...or increasing cancer rates (that is, the harmful mutation of DNA)...and trace that line all the way back to origin, it points to a MORE complex biological history rather than a less complex biological history.


Forgive me i dont understand your logic here. What points to a more complex biological history?


I don't have a hard and fast point, nothing scientific, just an observation. Sometimes as you look around it seems that life in general is degrading rather than evolving. It seems like more stuff is dying out than is developing. It seems like the human genome is getting more disease prone and more unstable rather than evolving to a higher state. There are of course lots of different possible reasons and a myriad of competing factors in that, so it's not an argument. Just food for thought.


ah i understand what your saying. your observation appears to be true if you look at things in the short term and overall. for example when things died they are then consumed by other life that is what decay is. Now as this other life is created, it in-it-self becames more complex be reproducing multiplying and mutating. these small life forms are then consumed by some larger form of life an things dieing just feed the entire circle of life. when something dies the circle will multiply and thus mutate becoming more complex.
you were saying that that the human genome is become more disease prone, this is not true we are jsut noticing all the different viruses and bacteria which do us harm.

those were just explinations for the specific examples you gave. but but overall i understand what your saying.
Author
Time
Post link
How come no one wants to explain:

  • How seemingly irreducibly complex things could have evolved.
  • Why the only actual evidence of evolution shows loss of information, rather than generation of new information (where are the living specimens that are on their way to developing into something else, or developing some new organ?)
  • Why Fresnel had to design a lens that magically evolved by itself for fish.
  • How 65+ Million year old dinosaur blood and unfossilised bone could have been preserved that long.

Do you have any idea how many scientific laws have to be broken to allow the theory of evolution to float? Genetic mutations have never been observed to be beneficial. They're neutral at best, or they just loose the genetic information already present. Now Darwin tried to explain this with what he called "survival of the fittest". He theorised that the bad genetic mutations would die out and only the beneficial ones would live on. How come we haven't observed this? Usually when a genetic mutation occurs, good or bad, it eventually weeds its way through the entire species. If that observation is true, as it appears to be, than it means much more harm than good occurs from mutations, and so we shouldn't expect good results to flow.

IF the Earth was to remain in the "primordial soup" stage for 120 billion years, than it *might* have enough time to randomly assemble the genetic code for one cell of the simplest form of life. And even if it did, that code is required to lie there in a usable form, otherwise it is not going to do anything at all. Of course the universe is said to be 12 billion years old, the Earth 4.3ish billion years old, and of course in its primordial soup stage, a mere matter of a few thousand - or couple of million years, whatever you want to believe. The biggest problem is creating something from nothing. We all know the theory of the Big Bang relies on there being matter there all-along and does nothing to really explain the existence of matter, but just asserts to explain how the universe became like it is. What a completely useless theory! If matter was there all along, then why couldn't it have all started ordered like this?

Nevertheless, even if the theoretical origin of life does assemble itself, AND survive (I won't bother detailing the reasons why survival is blatantly impossible) - how is it going to replicate? Can it reproduce? No it can't. It can't grow, it can't create more-cells it can just live and sustain itself and that's about it. The theory of evolution requires reproduction - or it couldn't occur. So how did THAT evolve? Simply stated, it couldn't have. But let's say it did, and you've got your single-cell bacterium replicating itself, and re-arranging its genetic code to adapt to new environments and alike. Of course, it has to be able to adapt very quickly to climate changes as the Earth cools, but apparently it did. Now it's time to evolve into a higher form of life. Perhaps one where reproduction occurs between two different sex's of the same species. How is it going to do this? I mean it's happily been reproducing asexually, how is it going to rearrange its code to allow reproduction to occur between two different specimens of the species? What a load of rubbish!

But apparently it happened. Okay sure, why not? Maybe now it's simple useless floating around isn't doing much good anymore, and because it evolved into having different sex's it now needs to move around freely at will (or, it needs to move around freely at will because it intends to create different sex's). What does it need first? A Brain? A Heart? A Central Nervous System? Veins? Arteries? Blood? Kidney? Lungs? Stomach? Acid? Skin maybe? Which is it going to start with? If it evolved a heart, than it's a useless organ that's just taking up valuable space and resources. Darwin's theory of the fittest claims it dies out. What about blood? Well that's useless too without anything to use it with. So you see, life is so complex that it can't be reduced step-by-step. Heck we can't design cameras as advanced as the human eye. Sure we can magnify it, but that's about it. The brain stores information more reliably, and more solidly than any form of data-storage we've designed.
Author
Time
Post link
could you consider the bible stories myths you don't know that they happend in that way
Author
Time
Post link
The way I described myths, yes. If you read revelation, the guy's talking about giant locusts with human heads (sounds kind of like Hueys) and beasts that crawl backwards spitting fire from their tails (sounds kind of like mobile artillery) and so forth. The point is, this guy saw *something* that he had no familiarity with and no way to describe. I don't doubt that he saw something, but his understanding limited his ability to write it down. In a similar way, human language and understanding only allow so much of a literal account of creation. In my reading of the creation myth, I believe:

God spoke creation into being
God intentionally created everything in existence
God created Mankind as the pinnicle of creation, in His own image. He also created Mankind with greater care and in a different way than the rest of creation (sculpted as opposed to spoke into being)
And so on.

So I would call it a myth insofar as it is trying to describe and define something with no perfect equivalent in human experience. I would call it a true but imperfectly related account rather than a folk tale or anything like that. After the Noah story, I read the bible strictly literally. Pre-Noah, I read it as I read the creation account.

I just hesitate to name it "myth" because myth is so hazily defined these days.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Post link
Text






Quote
Do you have any idea how many scientific laws have to be broken to allow the theory of evolution to float? Genetic mutations have never been observed to be beneficial. They're neutral at best, or they just loose the genetic information already present. Now Darwin tried to explain this with what he called "survival of the fittest". He theorised that the bad genetic mutations would die out and only the beneficial ones would live on. How come we haven't observed this? Usually when a genetic mutation occurs, good or bad, it eventually weeds its way through the entire species. If that observation is true, as it appears to be, than it means much more harm than good occurs from mutations, and so we shouldn't expect good results to flow.


DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY LAWS CREATIONISM HAS BROKEN. actually it has been observed. if you look at man different diseases you can clearly see that is has happened. for example many forms of lucemia(Sp) are not resistant to Penicillin, this occured because some forms of the disease in the 1940s were resistant to the anti biotic because of a simple mutation. this mutation aloud it to survive and so it evolved. there are many more examples of this look at HIV do you know why we cant cure it or create a vaccience for it, its cus the body virus mutates so much. it has been shown many times that evolution occurs. here is a another example for you. look at the cattle industery do you know why we have some cows that produce milk like mad, its because since the 1700sman has been selectively breeding so the cow has evolved to produce more milk. you say harm can come, i say why, a bad mutation will not travel throught out the species because the speciman that has it will not be able to breed as well due to its disavantage.

Quote
Nevertheless, even if the theoretical origin of life does assemble itself, AND survive (I won't bother detailing the reasons why survival is blatantly impossible) - how is it going to replicate? Can it reproduce? No it can't. It can't grow, it can't create more-cells it can just live and sustain itself and that's about it. The theory of evolution requires reproduction - or it couldn't occur. So how did THAT evolve? Simply stated, it couldn't have. But let's say it did, and you've got your single-cell bacterium replicating itself, and re-arranging its genetic code to adapt to new environments and alike. Of course, it has to be able to adapt very quickly to climate changes as the Earth cools, but apparently it did. Now it's time to evolve into a higher form of life. Perhaps one where reproduction occurs between two different sex's of the same species. How is it going to do this? I mean it's happily been reproducing asexually, how is it going to rearrange its code to allow reproduction to occur between two different specimens of the species? What a load of rubbish!


ok now up till this point we have been keep it libral but that last meg really got on my nerves because you jsut made it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. I always try to be nice and i usually never mock creationism but this post is an execption. first of to me i find it rubbish that just out of no where the universe was jsut made pop out of nowhere just as it is today. also find it rubbish that the world was suppositedly created in 7 days. i also find it rubbish that just by saying something exists it exsists. now that just about sums up creationism. i know your not going to find what i jsut said very nice and your probably going to get mad. well if you feel that way then youll understand my feelings towards your post. now it is apparent that you need to learn some bio cus you clearly do not know shit. Bactria DO repoduce asexually. infact 90% of all species reproduce asexually. its called mitosis and it also is how you grow bigger. cells in you bones undergo mitosis so that you can grow bigger. infact most of time when ever a cell repoduces it will undergo mitosis. the only time your see reproducing that combines two different DNAs is when two cells undergo meiosis. now if you want to learn the details go read more then just books that are religously bias. another thing you should know is that it can be clearly seen how life evolved from reproducing asexually to sexually if you do a little bit of research. hell i learned all of this in grade 11 bio. seriously man i not going to go through any more of this shit but you should know what you jsut said in that quote is WRONG just strait up. and i am not even going to debate you until you go learn something about what you are talking about. what your last quote jsut proved was that you dont know anything about what your talkign about instead you hear bits and peices of things from people. like that the earth is 4.3 billion years old or that the universe is thought to be 12 billion years old and you say thats not true, it cant, be cus you cant see it being true. let me tell you something jsut cus you dont see it happening doesnt mean that it doesnt, all it means is that you are near sighted. next time your goign to call soemthing rubbish read a book or learn a fact before you say it wrong BEFORE you speak.

Quote
But apparently it happened. Okay sure, why not? Maybe now it's simple useless floating around isn't doing much good anymore, and because it evolved into having different sex's it now needs to move around freely at will (or, it needs to move around freely at will because it intends to create different sex's). What does it need first? A Brain? A Heart? A Central Nervous System? Veins? Arteries? Blood? Kidney? Lungs? Stomach? Acid? Skin maybe? Which is it going to start with? If it evolved a heart, than it's a useless organ that's just taking up valuable space and resources. Darwin's theory of the fittest claims it dies out. What about blood? Well that's useless too without anything to use it with. So you see, life is so complex that it can't be reduced step-by-step. Heck we can't design cameras as advanced as the human eye. Sure we can magnify it, but that's about it. The brain stores information more reliably, and more solidly than any form of data-storage we've designed.


again go read a book, go take a course on evolution and youll learn how evolution explains those things. in fact look at forms of life that exsist today. did you know that there are types of single cell organism that have rudimetary eyes. any forms of algae have this so that they know where light is and so they can go towards it.
Author
Time
Post link
Shim? are you actually arguing for evolution?

And of course creationism breaks physical laws: GOD IS ABOVE THEM. HE WROTE THEM.

4

Author
Time
Post link
This is Shimraa's friend.

Silly boy with his computer on and door unlocked is taking a shower so I thought I'd add my two cents. I'd like to say that I'm more tiilting towards the evolutionist view of creation as it seems to make more logical sense. In addition to this, I find that frequently religious arguments condemning evolutionism have virtualy no merit. One of you guys brought up something about the Big Bang. as this is what everyone can safely agree is the quintisential point of creation it seems relevent. While I feel the Big Bang is an adequate theory, it does not tell everything but what it's tying to explain is pretty fuckin complicatd so why should it. People who use the inability of science to explain where all this matter came from are either searching too hard for an argument or are retarded. Just because there isn't a cohesive explanation doesn't mean it's not possible. I'd also like to point out that creationism presents the same prolem. If God created the niverse, where the hell did God coem from. Kinda poses the same questions if you ask me. Also, evolution does not talk about the origin of life or the universe or anything. The book is called "Origin of Species". It's a good book, suggest you read it. Darwin never once claimed to explain where everything came from just why there's soo much variety. A completely different banch of science came up with the Big Bang theory based on analysis of light from far off in space and the composition of matter. Currently the most valid theory explaining the Big Bang would be string theory, which is disgustingly complicated and frankl too long of a discussion to get into on a posting forum. And just a tip to constructing some kind of valid argument, use actualy valid premises to support you conclusions, not just dumbfuck facts pulled out of your ass. Cheers.

P.S.: As an added point to argue. I must remind everyone that this a Star Wars forum, and so comments must be takn in contrast. I am not very well vesed in the tales of the so caled wars of the stars, but am knowledgable to enough to know that thi war torn galaxy, hasgood,....and evil. Upon analysis of your avatars I have noticed that both Darth Chaltab's and Daniel B's are for the dark side. I mean hell, Daniel's is Darth vader, he's like the biggest asshole out there after the emperor. I mean he's really cool, just fuckin mean. So both of your are likely horrible un truths to misguide the populace of the empire you govern. Dirty nasty propaganda. And to show that Shimraa's argument is very true, may I point out that his avatar is of Nom Anor. Whom I have been led to believe is a double agent of one of the cool fuckin aliens. Not only is he a cool fuckin alien, but he's a double secret agent. I mean James Bond was only secret agent, and he slept with like three girls every movie and had a lot of of really cool stuff. So this guy, must sleep with twice as many girls, have twice as much cool stuff, and have at least twice as many movies. AND he's an alien, a fuckin cool one. Ina ddition to this great reason why Shimraa is correct, is that his name also happens to be the cool fuckin aliens leader or whatever. I mean that's amazing. Not only is his avatar one of an uber cool dude, but his namesake could kick yur ass to wherever the hell far off galaxy he came from. Just a point I think you should consider. TTFN
Author
Time
Post link
Of course creationism breaks scientific laws and theories. One is that matter cannot be destroyed, or created from void. The Big Bang theory requires space, time and matter all to exist at the same time. And what a gluons? Some scientists claim they hold the protons and neutrons together in atoms - but it's just another myth - a theory not even worth discussing. You will see neutrons decay into hydrogen atoms, but then you also see electrons and protons fuse to create neutrons. And even so - why are they magnetically charged? Why do they not allow each other to pass through the same space? Why is there are gravitational force between them? Science does not know the answer to any of those questions. Science has no explanation, whatsoever as to how space and time came into existence, let alone matter itself.

"While I feel the Big Bang is an adequate theory, it does not tell everything but what it's tying to explain is pretty fuckin complicatd so why should it."

As I said, the theory assumes space and time were in existence all along, and it assumes that at least some matter was also in existence. To date it has offered no explanation as to the origin of the universe (or the matter contained within), it just tries to explain "how that matter became spread out into galaxies". It's not a great theory.

"for example many forms of lucemia(Sp) are not resistant to Penicillin, this occured because some forms of the disease in the 1940s were resistant to the anti biotic because of a simple mutation."

Wrong. Natural selection. Those resistant were the ones to live on, and so (if anything) you are losing the genetic code that was not as beneficial. Again though, this is only based on natural selection, not evolution. They didn't evolve, they had the genes to resistance to penicillin all along, and those who had them lived on.

"there are many more examples of this look at HIV do you know why we cant cure it or create a vaccience for it, its cus the body virus mutates so much."

True, however a virus is not a living organism.

"look at the cattle industery do you know why we have some cows that produce milk like mad, its because since the 1700sman has been selectively breeding so the cow has evolved to produce more milk."

Natural selection, again using only genes that are originally present. That doesn't prove evolution, or even add supporting evidence.

"If God created the niverse, where the hell did God coem from."

Logically God exists outside the universe, where such rules and scientific laws are not only unknown, but incomprehensible. One thing you have to remember is that outside of the universe there is no time. Time is part of our universe.
Author
Time
Post link
on thing to say to you danielB NATURAL SELECTION IS EVOLUTION... again learn about what you are argueing b4 you argue and if this whole time you have been thinking that evolution relies on genes being created to coup with a change i am going to be very angy because it is the opposite of that. mutations occur and then if the enviroment that the creature lives in favor that mutation it will grow and become prodominat in the population.

As i understand it science it proving answers to all of your questions that is what string theory is about. personally i do not know that much about the theory cus i have not read that much about it, so i will not persume that i am able to explain it to you. the friend of mine that posted obove and dont worry i gave him hell for breaking into my room does understand it, i can get him to explain it to you if you like but am not going to talk about something which i dont know very well.

I know that Viruses are not life however they still undergo evolution because they are strands of RNA which it a less evolved form of DNA. (on aside note viruses are thought to be the first step in creating life, it is that that in the primordial goo viruses formed and from there they turned into cells)

i am happy to see that you used a couple of facts in that lastpost. i liked your example of neutrons turning into protons and electrons. to find the answer to how this works read into quarks.
Author
Time
Post link
Nobody said there was no natural selection.

His main point was that evolution can't explain the existense of a universe to begin with. And just because all the white rabbits survive better in the arctic doesn't mean that these rabbits will eventually become people. Survival of the fittest works within animal types, but it doesn't change one animal to another.

4

Author
Time
Post link
WOW i am very very annoyed at this thread and towards DaneilB. Evolution doesn't presume to explain WHY the universe is here or HOW it was created. it explains how life grows and becomes more diverse.
Author
Time
Post link
It's an attempt that works if you throw out several key observable phenomina of nature, and base the entire theory on something that's never been directly seen (that is, the change of one type of life form into a vastly different life form)..

The point in pointing out that it cannot explain the foundations of the universe is to show that both evolution and the big bang theory stem from people who don't believe God created the world and need to find an explanation without Him.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Did it ever occur too anyone that evolution, if it is true, is an incredibly smart way of getting life to change by itself in new and interesting ways. Maybe god in all his wisdom made the world like that.
Author
Time
Post link
oh that is not true at all. and i am proof of that. i believe in god however i still believe that the big bang occured and that evolution is true. let me ask you a question. what is the best type of world. one what need to be constantly looked after and tinkered with, or one that is self-sustaining, one the develops on its own. i would thing the second of those two. i believe that it was god who cause the big bang (we dont know what caused and we only have theories about what happened), and i believe that is was god who designed the universe in a way that evolution occured the way it does so that he didnt need to interfere all the time. I do not however believe in the bible, i am not chirstian or islamic or any other major religion. belief in the big bang or evolution does not require a disbelief in god.

if you are curious, my religion is sihkism, and the thing i love about it the most is that it doesnt constrain people. it doesnt have myths or stories about how the world was created or any of that stuff, it is a religion that just believes and pays tribute to god. would created the universe, it doesnt try to give ways of how he did it or of what happened when he did it.
Author
Time
Post link
A few thoughts:

1. I think I saw someone say that the Big Bang was something from nothing.
How exactly do we know there was nothing? Anything from before would have been completely and utterly remade during the Big Bang.

2. As for the explanation for the Big Bang, I have my own thoughts.
My physics teacher in my senior year of high school told us about the theory in which the end of the universe will be caused because of heat. Slowly, as more and more stars give off heat into the cosmos, the universe will grow warmer and warmer until nothing can survive. The universe will essentially boil itself. (Or something like that).

Well, massive amounts of energy would be necessary for a Big Bang, right? What if the build-up of heat energy is what will trigger another Big Bang? What if the previous Big Bang was caused by the same energy build up?
Author
Time
Post link
there is a theory that states that currently the universe is expanding and that at some point in the future it will reach a maximum distance and start to contract due to gravity, then after god knows how many year the universe will slowly retract until everthing comes very close togetherand youll get a super dense ball of matter. And once that ball is dense enough it will explode into another Big bang. Personally I am not a fan of that theory.
Author
Time
Post link
Yes the theory of evolution and the big bang a separate theories, however they are still both believed by the majority of who believe one. That is to say, if you believe one then you probably believe the other. Evolution assumes that life existed all along, which is a similar problem with the Big Bang, which assumes that stuff already exists. Logically, if you travel far enough back in time you'll come to a point where there is no past. This would be the beginning of the universe. It shouldn't even exist because it could not have created itself. Then matter comes along, where did it come from? It may have been there all along from the beginning. Anyhow, perhaps matter itself is as complex as life. I don't see scientists appreciate the complexity of particles - they just try to explain them. Trying to explain something they can't, something that really can't be explained, just theorized about. Gluons are a good example of simply bad science. They're something someone made up, nothing that has ever been observed, measured or tested ever showed their existence, or even hinted towards it.

They're a dream. A theory with no evidence whatsoever, simply put there by scientists to make more explainable something so complex. And comparing a virus to life is like comparing apples to oranges. Viruses infect living cells, they use the genetic code contained within those cells. It's futile to assume that a virus would be able to modify itself without the presence of living cells (since that is how it changes). Therefore it's also futile to assume it may have been the origin of life - a virus relies on living cells to infect! It does not even replicate without living cells. It's an artificial chicken-and-egg scenario. Viruses don't create life, they infect it, break it down and destroy it.

"on thing to say to you danielB NATURAL SELECTION IS EVOLUTION... again learn about what you are argueing b4 you argue and if this whole time you have been thinking that evolution relies on genes being created to coup with a change i am going to be very angy because it is the opposite of that. mutations occur and then if the enviroment that the creature lives in favor that mutation it will grow and become prodominat in the population."

Rubbish. Natural selection just uses the diversity of genes. Perhaps you've heard of the Moths of the Industrial Revolution which Evolutionists like to use to try and prove Evolution. You have a moth that has genes for white, and genes for black. The white moth was able to sit on the trees and not be seen, but when soot covered the trees they were seen and eaten. Instead it was the black moths who were out-living the white ones. And then, when the trees were white again we saw white moths being the ones to out-live, since they were the ones who could again camouflage on the tree trunks and branches.

Of course, the entire time both black and white moths of the particular species existed. About 95% were white, then about 95% were black (due to the white ones being seen and eaten by birds). Then the moth "evolved" again and 95% was, again, white. How you can confuse natural selection with evolution baffles even me. The genes existed all along. The moth didn't adapt to the new environment, it didn't mutate its genes to be more beneficial. Simply some died because they were the wrong colour.

And even if all the genes to create the white or black colour were destroyed - it doesn't prove evolution. Far from it. The very most that would prove is loss of genetic information. For evolution what you need to prove is generation of new genetic information. And from the sound of it, we are far more likely to experience and observe losing genetic information - we have never observed the reverse happening.