Mice16, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Clazzy is a college graduate. You are a seven-year-old who is copying things directly from a biased site and trying to present them as fact. When you can provide evidence for your claims, come back. Until then, stop posting opinions as fact.
I am a 14 year old, and being a college graduate doesnt make whatever you say fact. So far clazzy has managed to state about all of the evolutionary OPINIONS there are. Not actually supporting it with evidence. The first posts I wrote, yes I did quote pages from a scientific site. AIG has lots of scientists with P.H.Ds on it's side. Most of which were evolutionists at one point in time, but saw the facts on creationists side, and the assumptions on the evolutionists side (Dating, redshift, one thing changing into another) all faith on the evolutionists side NOT fact. Evolutionists have been proven wrong time and time again. The tooth discovered that was supposed to belong to 'lucy' was discovered to be that of a extinct pig! The 'proof' of the embriotic evolution of an unborn baby, FALSE. It was photos of multiple embryos from different creatures. Evolution accepted this, but still prints in in text-books. When evolution displayed what was supposed to be the transitionary phase between land and sea creatures, they only had fragments of bone from the head and the legs. The rest was an artists impression, mixed with their beliefs. A biased site? I think not. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The formation of suns has been "observed" NEVER the formation of planets.
I never said that it had been observed.
Quote:
You have shown your lack of physical knowlage when you tried to 'debunk' newtonian law!(IE: there is a gravitational barrier around the earth which would break the moon apart)
Look, objects don't randomly tear apart in a gravitational field. You could send the Moon into a black hole and it wouldn't be broken apart. Instead, it would be crushed into an infinitessimally small space.
Quote:
PLUS particles NEVER form in a vacume with NOTHING there, you should know: 0+0=0 There has to be something there in the first place.
Go and learn quantum mechanics from a teacher who worked at CERN and saw it in action, then tell me.
Besides, -1 + 1 = 0 as well, which is exactly what happens. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate, causing the production of two photons (i.e. light). Two photons are then capable of colliding (providing they have the energy) to create matter and antimatter in equal amounts. Annihilation and pair production, look them up.
Quote:
And what about the thing it exploded? A cosmic egg, as some evolutionist would say, It would have to have sufficient mass to make all the planets in the cosmos!
Black holes are actually very small, but would require a mass larger than that of a couple of our solar systems to have such a strong pull. You're talking about 10^20kg (or something stupidly big) in a space the size of a small city. Sounds unfeasible, no? Well it's possible. Atoms are mostly empty space, very similar to our solar system in fact. One large mass in the centre (neutrons and protons) with huge distances between the orbiting electrons.
Quote:
And, redshift actually DISproves the big bang, because, along with SDSS, proved the 'galactocetric model' and 'quantized redshifts' which are that the universe has an edge, and we are pretty close to the center.
Perhaps the universe does have an edge, I don't know. We can't see the edge of the universe. The Doppler Effect, however, DOES prove that objects are travelling away from us, just like in that example I gave you with the car, merely on a larger scale. I don't even know what the hell SDSS is, so I'll ignore that. You also do realise that the universe is, quite simply too big to determine a centre? If you sat in a completely black room where the walls are moving away from you faster than you can run, how can you judge where you are in relation to the walls?
Quote:
So far clazzy has managed to state about all of the evolutionary OPINIONS there are. Not actually supporting it with evidence.
So all my talk about disproving your arguments with maths before was just me making equations up? Besides, you've barely argued your case very well.
Quote:
Evolutionists have been proven wrong time and time again.
For how long did the Catholic Church believe the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system?
Quote:
The tooth discovered that was supposed to belong to 'lucy' was discovered to be that of a extinct pig! The 'proof' of the embriotic evolution of an unborn baby, FALSE. It was photos of multiple embryos from different creatures. Evolution accepted this, but still prints in in text-books. When evolution displayed what was supposed to be the transitionary phase between land and sea creatures, they only had fragments of bone from the head and the legs. The rest was an artists impression, mixed with their beliefs.
A real scientist works with what they have and hypothesises. If you found a trail of red fluid on the floor, you'd probably assume it was blood or paint. You may investigate to find out that it was a tomato that caused it. There's a major difference between a new Earth creationist scientist and any other scientist. The scientist will accept that he was wrong and continue, the creationist won't accept he is wrong and simply clutch at straws to find more evidence to support his wrong theory. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
The tooth discovered that was supposed to belong to 'lucy' was discovered to be that of a extinct pig! The 'proof' of the embriotic evolution of an unborn baby, FALSE. It was photos of multiple embryos from different creatures. Evolution accepted this, but still prints in in text-books. When evolution displayed what was supposed to be the transitionary phase between land and sea creatures, they only had fragments of bone from the head and the legs. The rest was an artists impression, mixed with their beliefs.
A real scientist works with what they have and hypothesises. If you found a trail of red fluid on the floor, you'd probably assume it was blood or paint. You may investigate to find out that it was a tomato that caused it. There's a major difference between a new Earth creationist scientist and any other scientist. The scientist will accept that he was wrong and continue, the creationist won't accept he is wrong and simply clutch at straws to find more evidence to support his wrong theory.
Actually, I was about to say that about the evolutionist scientists. That's the reason they will take the smallest peice of 'evidence', paste it on magazines worldwide, and find it was wrong all along, and won't post a retraction. You still didn't explain why they put disproven theorys in textbooks. Ones that you've probably read.
Clazzy wrote:
For how long did the Catholic Church believe the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system?
Those are the catholics.
Clazzy wrote:
So all my talk about disproving your arguments with maths before was just me making equations up? Besides, you've barely argued your case very well.
Hypothesis
Clazzy wrote:
I never said that it had been observed.
I never said you did. Just that It would have to happen in the big bang hypothesis.
Clazzy wrote:
Go and learn quantum mechanics from a teacher who worked at CERN and saw it in action, then tell me.
Besides, -1 + 1 = 0 as well, which is exactly what happens. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate, causing the production of two photons (i.e. light). Two photons are then capable of colliding (providing they have the energy) to create matter and antimatter in equal amounts. Annihilation and pair production, look them up.
Quantum mechanics are mostly hypothesis;
A hypothesis is: "From the other things we have observed in the world, we can guess that this is so."
A theory is: "From some tests we did, we believe this is so."
A law is "This is testable and retestable, and is so."
Never forget these three things, since Creation and Evolution are admittedly, both theories, they are unprovable, and not law. The big bang, is a hypothesis. And the original evolutionists never wanted it in the first place. Because it is basicly "in the begining..." The original evolution theory was that the earth has been going on infinitely. I can state all the proof I want to you, and you can state all yours to me, arguing will never change peoples thinking.
you and I both have lives, and dont want to spend most of them checking the off topic section for another theory to debunk. If we want to continue our debate, then there are tens of thousands of other forums that focus on the Creation vs Evolution battle on the internet. _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 7:03 am Post subject:
Quote:
Actually, I was about to say that about the evolutionist scientists. That's the reason they will take the smallest peice of 'evidence', paste it on magazines worldwide, and find it was wrong all along, and won't post a retraction. You still didn't explain why they put disproven theorys in textbooks. Ones that you've probably read.
Look at all that evidence you've posted...
Quote:
Those are the catholics.
The Catholic Church WAS the Christian Church until Protestants split off. They also believed the Earth was flat. Don't try and get pedantic.
Quote:
Hypothesis
If you're not going to argue, neither am I.
Quote:
Quantum mechanics are mostly hypothesis;
Oh, so protons and electrons are made up? The other particles that have been discovered, the ones which were found in the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider)? Do you even know anything about quantum mechanics? You don't appear to.
Quote:
A hypothesis is: "From the other things we have observed in the world, we can guess that this is so."
A theory is: "From some tests we did, we believe this is so."
Relativity has worked in every case it has been tested in. As such, every experiment is checked to make sure it complies with Relativistic physics, and they always do. I doubt you even understand Relativity, do you?
Besides, from what you've said, a theory and a hypothesis are exactly the same thing, just worded differently.
Quote:
The big bang, is a hypothesis. And the original evolutionists never wanted it in the first place. Because it is basicly "in the begining..." The original evolution theory was that the earth has been going on infinitely.
Yes, scientists found new evidence. It shows that you haven't listened to a word I said. Let me spell it out.
THEY GET THINGS WRONG. SCIENTISTS MAKE MISTAKES. EVERYONE DOES.
Saying that a theory made 100 years ago is wrong means nothing. Back then, people didn't have ways to measure the background radiation of the universe, nor could they measure the Doppler effect. With technology comes understanding.
Quote:
you and I both have lives, and dont want to spend most of them checking the off topic section for another theory to debunk. If we want to continue our debate, then there are tens of thousands of other forums that focus on the Creation vs Evolution battle on the internet.
What, you've run out of arguments so you want me to go and argue on some other forums instead? _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
The quantum physics you were referring to are hypothesis, The catholic church was MADE UP after christianity, and killed those who wouldn't accept them - even christians. And you seem to be avoiding the fact that the evolutionary scientists are like religious zeliots, clinging to even the vastly outdated 'proof' they can find.
I have NOT run out of answers! I HAVE A LIFE! I don't spend ALL day, EVERY day on the internet! IF you want to argue with someone FOR ETERNITY, Then GO TO THOSE FORUMS! _________________
[quote="Lt A1br3cht"]Kill it with fire!!!!!!!!!!![/quote] QUICK_EDIT
hmm...what if when Earth was hit by that small planet that is now our moon, a few billion years ago, maybe that made the magnetic field go down so fast since then? Or maybe that that caused Earth, which was more like venus at that time to actually move out of it's original trajectory into it's current or almost and that force that pushed it all that way made Mars go further, and ice up? Or maybe it happened so close to Mars that it actually pushed the planet back...That dosen't mean though there was sentient life there, it was maybe even barely begginning. Did anyone play Earth 2150? Take a look how the catastrophe in Earth 2150 happens, with earth moving out of it's orbit because of a nuke on the north pole (or was it the south?)...Well, I don't know myself, these are all silly assumptions i've made in a few minutes' thinking. Oh well... QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The quantum physics you were referring to are hypothesis
No. A lot is theoretical, but it obeys many equations and laws that have been found, even those of classical physics. Photons exist, fact. Antimatter exists, fact. Protons, neutrons and electrons exist, fact. Are you going to deny all that?
Quote:
The catholic church was MADE UP after christianity, and killed those who wouldn't accept them - even christians.
Catholicism, up until the Schism, was basically the Christian church. Eastern Orthodox is more or less the Balkans and Russia, so the religion you follow is derived from Catholicism, which is widespread in the Western world.
Quote:
And you seem to be avoiding the fact that the evolutionary scientists are like religious zeliots, clinging to even the vastly outdated 'proof' they can find.
Oh, so us scientists are like yourself, then? As I've said time and time again, scientists admit they are wrong. They were wrong about ether (which, about 200 years ago, they believed to be what space consisted of). They didn't realise that light could act as both a wave and a particle, and had created this idea of ether, as a particle wave couldn't travel through a vacuum. When found to be wrong, it was shown that light could act as a wave (despite the fact that it could act as a particle too), and particle physics was born.
They were wrong about the steady state universe, the original descendants of humans and various other things. They admitted it. Creationists are 100% certain that the Earth is 6000 years old, so simply try to find evidence that proves it then attempt to debunk anything else.
Come on, you lot label the date as the 23rd of October, 4004 BC. It still baffles me that virtually the whole Church-faring world denies belief in what you think, yet you choose to believe it. If even the largest churches in the world think it's false (along with a great majority of scientists) then how can you possibly think you're right?
Another question, by the way. If the universe really is as old as you say, then why is light from several million lightyears away (that is several million years old) reaching us now? That is FACT, and you can't deny it unfortunately.
space is a cover up to whats realy out there... illuminati live in the centre of the earth (if u reeealy didn't want any body to find you, you just tell them it's thousands of miles of magma).
The world had a problem centuries maybe millenia ago, we are the pieces they picked up... A new start.. Heaven and Hell ? are they on Crack? why don't monkeys go to heaven and hell(they say pigeons don't because they don't have the concious mind to decide good or bad... when all good or bad is, is us not being sure if it was the right thing to do, when realy EVERYTHING is right, because there is no good or bad, its just life).
Back to the monkeys. Monkeys have a concious mind, they are gods children as much as we, but yet are they going to hell because they don't worship every sunday for the rest of your life. HELL ; firey, full of demons, everything bad is in hell, you will be tortured for your sins on earth - this is all word of mouth, if god wanted us to worship him... he'd fuckin tell us like u'd be that sad on someone. that they've got a possibility of being burned for eternity, but your not actualy telling them.. BULLSHIT!
Illuminati(or other higher power), have it on LOCK-DOWN, we only know what we've been told, and we've only been told by school and our parents, who were told by there schools and parents. Which is are all taught by the government, The greatest way to convince someone something, is to make them believe they are in control.
Tony blair - puppet
George Bush - puppet
all the other prime-minsters/ presidents who i don't know, because i only know what i have been told, and they don't tell me about other countries buisness. Because then everyone would know everyone elses buisness and that makes them that tiny bit more susseptable to being un-covered.
Space isn't there
The core isn't there
It's like the matrix
in conclusion, this is all made up on the spot, i know i drifted from space to religion to who realy runs the planet. but i got my point out none the less - please excuse the lack of spelling, it's in my blood i cant help it QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Location: The Most Holy Metal Reich
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject:
Heh, ignorant fools, my Goddess has created the universe 1 year and 5 months ago .
And you can't prove that I'm wrong, because my Goddess created all the false evidence to tempt disbelieving fools into damnation .
Carnotaurus wrote:
We all know Hitler has a secret base on Mars and communicates with the Reptoids to plot world domination via the tunnel to the center of the earth from Nueschwabenland.
It's interesting that you brought up that topic.
I'm making a mod for Close Combat V based on that conspiracy theory. _________________ Eradicate. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Location: Taking up space inside the TibWeb server
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:19 am Post subject:
Clazzy pretty much said it all. You lose this round, Faulty Outdated Creationism Theories!
Seriously, though, why are the two theories mutually exclusive?
I follow a branch of Christianity known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One of the churche's core beliefs is that knowing as much as possible is one of the goals you should strive for, and the only way to know is to question. While other religions preach blind obedience to doctrine and stoic narrowmindedness to anything anyone besides a preacher tells you, LDS teaches you that you should question everything - even your own religious beliefs, even something as sacred as the Holy Bible. This has allowed me a unique perspective on things - I know quite a bit about both religion and science, and have come to the conclusion that creationism and evolution theories are not mutually exclusive. First of all, the Bible was written by men, not God. Admittedly great men, but they were still only transcribing what someone else told them. How do we now time has any meaning to God? One day to Him could be thousands, if not millions, of years to us. What He sees as six days could well be a million or more years as we measure time. Second, what's to say evolution wasn't God's way of creating the various creatures of the Earth? If you say He just made them out of air, then why would there be scientific evidence for anything God did? Why doesn't He just make it make it happen, ignoring the boundaries of science altogether? The reason, I believe, is that God feels obligated to act within the boundaries He set for His domain. Everything He has done He did in ways explainable through modern science. The solar system was created pretty much the way scientists say it was - God just helped it along a bit. Evolution created life - God just jump-started it, guiding its path carefully so all the required elements would be in place for life to evolve. The world has existed for much, much longer than 6000 years - assuming this is not a translation error from the literally thousands of times the Bible has been copied, edited, translated, and transcribed, than it is likely that either the writers simply used the largest number they could comprehend or that God perceives time differently from humans (assuming that an immortal being can percieve something as intangible as Time) - or both. It is physically impossible for a world to be created and to reach a point where it can support life within 6000 years - to say nothing of having a fully developed, diverse sentient civilization within that time- within the boundaries God has set. I know that both believers in Creationism and Evolution are very narrowminded on the subject, and as such I know I am dooming myself to a lengthy flaming, but I felt obligated to present all sides of the argument. _________________ This mod is dead!
Joined: 26 Nov 2002 Location: Algae Colony On Mars
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:23 am Post subject:
Quote:
Seriously, though, why are the two theories mutually exclusive?
Quite possibly because both have two separate dates for the creation of the universe, both being vastly different?
Quote:
What He sees as six days could well be a million or more years as we measure time.
Back in the past, saying a million years would be too difficult for humans to comprehend, so it would just be far simpler to give it a measurement that humans understand.
Quote:
I know I am dooming myself to a lengthy flaming
Not really, you can at least accept that the Bible isn't 100% accurate and you're actually open-minded. _________________
Quote:
This is sexier than what this forum was supposed to tolerate. - Banshee
How can religion be true, if there are many more than one religion which tell everyone different things. As for knowing what truely happened, none of us will never know, because none of us were actualy there. All we can do is theorise and hypothesis on what happened.
Simply Put;
Clazzy is right.
The earth is alot older than 6000 years. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You say god does it in a plausable realistic way, God knows we all doubt him, so why would he damand we worship him, yet not even tell us.
By him doing it in a realistic, life fitting way, that just means we're never gonna know! Faith i hear you cry, but why should we have faith with something that doesn't have faith in us? 20% of the earths population goes to church every sunday, i don't see god turning up at the queens corination or the general election, him showing up at them is doin us alot more good than we're doin him by listening to passages of the bible every sunday.
the bible is brutal, the bible is very dramatic and shows how jesus died for our sins and many other aspects of the christian religion, however it was written after jesus died. When watching the passion i thought hang on a minute, stop the shit, stop it now. Like jesus wants us to watch him die again.. am sorry but it was far to gorey, far to graphic. Then i realised what if jesus is pissed at us all, mel gibson made money out of a film about jesus, alot of money. but then it was based on the bible, everyone says the bible is graphic(i wouldn't know) and if the bible was written after jesus how do we know that he aint opposed to the bible, how can we read something day in day out and worship it, if jesus never said anything about it.
it's all brain washing and geekspeek without trying to flame ya mate, it worked on ya. I agree the bible teaches well, i agree the bible does enhance inner piece and a succesful community however thats all it does. it was designed for people to follow, a grip on the world without them knowing nor caring because they honestly believe it.
If I can say my word, not really about this discussion, but it fits the topic and discussion well.
I've seen a lot of this kinds of discussions about evolution and big bang etc. And one thing I noticed is that people often think that evolution and the big bang are easily explainable with a few sentences or words. They think because it's science that every believer should be able to explain how everything happened and that they should be able to answer every question fired at them. Well I've been thinking a lot about these two theories in particular (and I don't know all technical details), but these two theories are SO difficult to completely understand, not only because they are scientifically difficult, but it's also extremely hard to get a right picture of these theories.
For example many opposers of the big bang theory often ask how something (an explosion or whatever) can come from nothing. This is very hard to explain because the word 'nothing' in everyday life means something else than the 'nothing' in the big bang theory. The nothing in the big bang theory means no matter, no radiation, no forces, no time etc. And because there was really nothing, it has never existed. That's why something didn't come from nothing, but something was always there. And what was there before the 'big bang', nothing, before the beginning doesn't exsist.
Same goes for different things in the evolution theory. Why are species so 'perfect'? And how can species be so complex? Again it's a matter of getting a right picture of this theory, which is very hard. Species are perfect because of the strong competition there is in nature. A not-so-perfect-adapted-animal probably won't survive. (I hope most of you know a little bit of the basics of evolution) In the end all species are 'perfect' just because the not-so-perfect are gone, dead, never came through the tough competition. Also you should imagine the enormous time period in which evolution takes place. Millions of years, impossible to see a species change in a lifetime, and also in many lifetimes inpossible to see that.
I just wanted to share this, I don't know everything about these theories, and I don't really care. I believe in what I think happened, and if it's not true, I don't care. I just don't believe in a religion: 1. because I think (from what I know about religion) it's one of the most unlogical things I know, 2. I can't understand the greatness of a God (again, from what I know) 3. There's to many to choose from, I don't believe that a person goes into heaven, because of where he grew up, what his parents believed and what other people told him. Because it's not a matter of how 'true' a religion is what makes someone believe in that religion (of course not always true, but most of the time), but just where he was born. In Muslim countries most believers are Muslim, in Christian countries most believers are Christian and in Hindu countries most believers are Hindu. It's a simple as that.
Lenin is a wise man, hitting the bullseye here, imo. I, myself, once had a religious beleif. Well..two, actually. Originally I was a Catholic, then I , breifly looked at Kemetic Orthodoxy(A revival of Ancient Egyptain religions. I have the URL somewhere.), a very, very liberal religion in the way of humanities, though they question the existance of Dinosaurs. Now I support, but I dont worship at, the Catholic church. If only they'd stop molesting the altar boys. _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
Lenin is a wise man, hitting the bullseye here, imo. I, myself, once had a religious beleif. Well..two, actually. Originally I was a Catholic, then I , breifly looked at Kemetic Orthodoxy(A revival of Ancient Egyptain religions. I have the URL somewhere.), a very, very liberal religion in the way of humanities, though they question the existance of Dinosaurs. Now I support, but I dont worship at, the Catholic church. If only they'd stop molesting the altar boys.
Kemetic Orthodox forums. They actually use A LOT of ancient egyptain terms, so its kinda like a history lesson and a religion at the same time. _________________ PPM's Reichstrollfuherer, 236th Trollenparties brigade. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
- please excuse the lack of spelling, it's in my blood i cant help it 
.
