Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Here are a few debates I brought up and created myself using the laws of Physics and logic... I originally wrote this for someone else, so if there are references to his name, my bad.
Let's see how this pans out. Who knows, it might not be about the second law of Thermodynamics (which has come bak into fashion recently in YEC circles, or so it seems)
The Big Bang Theory
The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution in any way, shape or form by any stretch of the imagination.
The traditional theory that two atoms/ matter/ electrons collided together and caused a enormous explosion.
Wrong. There was no collision because there was nothing to collide and no space or time for it to collide in.
Due to this explosion dust was created that the began to settle around the universe.
Nope. The energy of the big bang took advantage of this new fangled 'space' and condensed into particles, which the rest of the energy moved around. These interacted with each other in accordance with the laws of the universe, to create the simple basic blocks, such as hydrogen.
It was spun into action with the right chemistry to create the sun,
Stars were (and are) created when a cloud of hydrogen collapsed under its own gravity, creating enough pressure to cause the atoms to fuse, which is continuing to this day as that giant nuclear explosion we call the sun.
then dust collected in balls and got caught within the gravitational pull of the sun and became what we know of as our planets...
More or less correct.
This is going of the grounds, of the creation of our solar system under such a theory alone. Apart, that is, form the creation of the rest of the universe... This is known as the Big Bang theory, brought about by Charles Darwin, who invented the rest of the theory of evolution.
Wha? Brought about by Charles Darwin? He had nothing to do with the 'Big Bang' theory, it wasn't even concieved of until after he died!
Refute
This may seem as a nice way to write off any form of creation, for it just all exploded into place.
This is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang, but a forgivable one as it seems to be shared by almost everyone on the planet.
But just looking first at the two particles. According to this theory they floated around in space for billions and billions of years.. Or the void we know as space.
They did not float in space, as space did not exist. They did not float for billions of years, as time did not exist. They did not in fact float at all, as they did not exist either.
Yet if you look at the laws of physics, this cannot be so. For the energy of these two particles would have worn out many eons before they ever met,
But since they did not exist your pount is invalid.
and therefore would have caused no explosion. yet for a time let us imagine they did, and said explosion did take place...
Ok...
The nature of an explosion is of such that it never creates life.
This is based on a misunderstanding of the 'Big Bang'. It was not an explosion, it was an expansion of the primordial energy point.
Never has something exploded into something completely different. And looking even into the blasts of the atomic bombs. Explosions always cause degeneration, never generation, or life.
See above.
Therefore such an explosion on that magnitude would have destroyed any hope for life on any planet. And with that, the life of the stars.
How can it destroy hope for life on a thing which it created that doesn't exist yet?
They are composed of many elements and chemicals. Yet only one or two caused the explosion. And even broken down they would not have created enough to form a star, then charge it with so much force as to cause it to light.
There is a lot of gravity at the core of a trillion tonne cloud of hydrogen. More than enough to cause nuclear fusion. We can cause nuclear fusion ourselves, it's called an H-bomb.
With the theory at that of the dust settling, you may note that there is no gravity in space. Only that which is emitted by other objects, and since no other objects were around, the matter itself would have never settled, nor the dust, nor anything for that matter. It would have been given such a thrust that the force of the explosion would send it out into the deep recesses of space, and they would have never slowed down because no gravity existed.
This would be a good post, except for the fact that there was no space to emit off into. The early matter was very closely confined by the boundaries of the universe itself.
Cycle of the Universe
This title sounds as though it would make a good horror movie, or some sci-fi flick. Yet let's look at it this way. Obviously this would state that the universe has had no beginning, but has kept renewing itself through all the ages of eternity.
This would seem to be the 'steady state' theory, which was falsified.
With what would it renew itself? For the laws of science say that natural systems left to themselves decay and grow old. Yet there had to have been some kind of renewing source, or stars would have burnt themselves out. gases would all have expanded and exploded and grown dim, since time itself would not exist, for everything has always been.
But everything has not always been. Hence the big bang theory.
And explosion would cause such a force as to destroy the old universe, which would bring in the new on (regarding that the original Big Bang theory were correct).
There was no 'old universe' to destroy.
And at that, with what would the universe come to knowledge that it needed to be renewed? Ad who would flip the switch that would renew it?
Why is an intelligent agency needed to cause the big bang? There are 5 possible causes, Deity it just one. (Lucaspa has a list somewhere)
Even at the beginning that never was under this theory, everything would have been left to itself and would have ran itself out... And under this there would have been nothing of such a force to cause such an explosion to renew...
There was a beginning. Its called the big bang, and is far more elegant than creating the whole thing straight off.
Earth
Ok let's say that the explosion under either theory was able to work. And hung in space you had the fresh planet earth. Though we could stop here for just a minute and point something out. The sun is gases and therefore burs itself away, as does any star.
I think I know what is coming now...
it has been recorded that the sun loses about five feet every hour.
Possible traces of Hovind detected. I am sending in a decontamination team armed with logic and evidence to clear it up.
</B>
Well judging the distance between the earth and the sun, and factor in time. You would have the sun much larger then it is now, and to the point that the earth would be engulfed in that inferno.. therefore causing a major riff in that theory....
But let's go on and say the sun has always been the same size, and therefore did not scorch the world into nothing.... Then you have to deal with the second major step in the beginning process of evolution about how life was formed. Plant life for that matter. Which is something I cannot answer, for I have never heard an evolutionist speak about how plant life form.. And them saying that it seemingly went un-altered....
Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, rendering this part of your argument irrelevant. still, I may as well have a crack...
The Creatures
Men have seemingly come to an agreement on this matter that, in the dawning days of the world, there was a great pool of slime. Where this slime comes from they will not say. One theory says a particle fell into this slime and a creature came out, another says, that these fishy creatures evolved and then came out as this walking fish creature. Another still says (most widely held) that all life developed from a single-celled organism that evolved. Well for that single-cell organism would be made up of hundreds, in not thousands of proteins.
Talk to lucaspaabout protocells, I'm running out of stamina...
And science has made the estimation that the probability of one protein evolving is. 1 to the 47,000,000 power (something along those lines). Which matched up to that you would have better chances of walking down the street and finding the winning ticket to the Georgia lottery (several hundred million dollars) laying on the curb. And doing the same thing, every time that it came, for the next 10,000 years... Or taking one atom, and releasing it at random into the universe, then going through all space. And grabbing only once, and catching the one atom, BLINDFOLDED... Those are the odds.
ARGH! No they are not. These calculations assume a lot of things that are not true, for one thing they ignore the laws of chemical interactions.
Yet this little single-celled creature would stay a single-celled creature, for it would see no need, nor have any blueprint to change into anything else.
Setience is not a requirement for evolution, and the whole point of evolution is that it does not need a prior blueprint because it makes one itself.
That is only on the grounds that it evolved a brain, or a sense of logic.
But say they were right and this little creature made I along far enough to come out of the water as some sort of fish-man there would be even more troubles to explain. Why did it come out? How did it reproduce after itself? Why did it change to have legs, if it could have formed something else?
The first creatures would not need any need of sex of reproduce after themselves. Nor would they develop it, for thy would just evolve or grow to suit there needs. Evolution has et to explain this mystery away... Yet this little creature devolved. It would it branch into different kinds of animals? I have not seen polar bears coming to the beaches of Florida.. No, it would be plenty content where it was, and would see no need to go farther out into the world. For it would have no drive to go into the great unknown.
This fish creature, is at best a myth, based on a few logically questions... There are more, but I will stop here..
Yes, please do. I have neither the will or the stamina to go any further with this.
The Dinosaurs
Let's say creatures made it far enough to the dinosaurs... Well what happened to them. There are several theories. The main one you'll read is that a meteor hint the earth and created a dust storm. Wouldn't we see the effects of said meteor today? They say the crater in Flagstaff, Arizona was probably about the size of a house. A rock the size of a house landing in the ocean is said to have an extreme effect on the world, though one has not. If it was enough to kill all the dinosaurs.. Then where is the marking? And why did only the dinosaurs die?
Now explain this? If the Bible is all false, and there was no flood, then why is the ark on Mt. Ararat? Why are their fish at the tops of the mountains in the Swiss Alps? Why is the fossil record go in this pattern from fossils found the deepest to the nearest to the surface. Sails and slow creatures - Dinosaurs - Horses and such animals - And man is last..... nearest.. As if they were running from a giant mud slide?
In Christ Alone,
Lyle
I thought you were stopping? Ah well, I may as well do one last refutation and point out that we can see the crater today, it is underwater off the coast of Mexico.
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
Last edited by PhantomLlama; 27th November 2003 at 05:29 PM.
The traditional theory that two atoms/ matter/ electrons collided together and caused a enormous explosion. Due to this explosion dust was created that the began to settle around the universe.
As Jet Black has indicated, this has absolutely nothing to do with the standard model of the big bang. And it was not first proposed by Darwin. Since this is your starting premise, the rest of the arguments are invalid.
Originally Posted by Lyle
Now explain this? If the Bible is all false,
Lyle, if the data tells us that there was no flood or that the earth was not made in 6-24 hour days it does not mean that the Bible is false. At most it means that you have not correctly interpreted the intention of the Genesis account. Please don't suggest that if your interpretations are wrong then 'the Bible is false'.
I now have even more respect for the great refuters like Lucaspa, Jet Black, and the rest of you great posters. When the errors started stacking up into double figures, I began to lose the will to live, but you guys refute this kind of thing day after day after day, and do a better job of it as well.
Edit: Sorry to all the people I did not mention by name.
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
Last edited by PhantomLlama; 27th November 2003 at 05:09 PM.
This is almost laughable, I say almost, because it is kind of sad. I do not think I have ever read anything more wrong. Is this a cut and paste from Hovind? It is obvious you know little or nothing of Physics, because if you did you would die of embarrassment to evenpost this trash. Sorry, reality is just not going to go away because it does not jive with your fairy tale. There WAS a big bang. We know that and have evidence of it. What the first cause is we do not know. Deity could certainly be an explanation, although not nec. the best one. Do not try to go head to head with factual evidence. Tying your faith to bad and/or falsified science will make them both go under-together. Science is the study of creation QUIT trying to dumb it down! People like you drive away intellectual people from church. You really need to read and study before you post such nonsense!
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
Like 10-11 years... I have presented it with regards to the laws of Science and Physics... Even a loop hole in one would disown the system in it's entirety.
You've claimed to have studied these topics for over 10 years (!), but then make an elementary mistake like this:
This is known as the Big Bang theory, brought about by Charles Darwin, who invented the rest of the theory of evolution.
I mean, Charles Darwin died decades before the Big Bang Theory even appeared.
Quite frankly, I'm skeptical if you've studied these topics for more than a week.
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
Last edited by Pete Harcoff; 27th November 2003 at 05:16 PM.
Lyle- Reasearch "CMB" and also "Red Shifting". I suspect you are probably confused between what a Universe and Galaxy, even is. I recently met someone who thought the Universe was out solar system and another who thought Galaxy was syn. to Universe (pulling hair). I have no problem with people not knowing about a topic. But why the Hubris?
__________________
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
Maybe it just took him 10 years to just read through Hovind's material on the subject.
__________________ Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."
And now you might see the reason I asked how long you have been researching this.
Two things that I figured I would add.
Shrinking sun: The claim that the sun is shrinking appears to be based on a single paper in 1980. The paper referenced another paper written in 1979. The 1979 paper took a look at data over a 90 year period (ending in 1953), the data suggested that the sun was shrinking, however they did not interpret this data as an on ongoing change. something that the 1980 paper ignored. Since then we have not stopped measuring the sun.
More recent measurements since then have shown that the sun is not shrinking at all. One possible error in the original work is the fact that the sun doesn't have a very well defined surface, and thus changes in the definition of where the surface is, could produce measurement changes, creating the appearance of shrinking.
Its of interest to note that it has been known that the sun hasnt been shrinking for almost as long as our original poster has been alive.
Linear Mode
