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.
The Big Bang Theory
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. It was spun into action with the right chemistry to create 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... 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.
Refute
This may seem as a nice way to write off any form of creation, for it just all exploded into place. 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. 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, and therefore would have caused no explosion. yet for a time let us imagine they did, and said explosion did take place...
The nature of an explosion is of such that it never creates life. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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). 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?
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...
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. it has been recorded that the sun loses about five feet every hour. 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....
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. 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.
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. 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..
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?
The OP has about as much of a connection to the laws of physics as a big piece of cardboard with a tree painted on it has to a forest. It would serve in a play, perhaps, with willing suspension of disbelief, but that's about it.
__________________ Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn I follow Christ; therefore I am To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39
Suffice to say, you haven't brought up anything that hasn't been refuted dozens of times here in the past.
__________________ 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
Im curious, how much have you actually studied about these topics?
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.
Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff
Suffice to say, you haven't brought up anything that hasn't been refuted dozens of times here in the past.
them go for it. If the Big bang theory were true, and there had been some gravitational force from a body that didn't exsist, then the universe would all form round that and be one big blob... But there's so much more I could have put. Even baking down to the molecular structure of life as we know it.... How much do you know about cells? And do you know that the whole Theory is based upon simple cells, because that's all darwin could see at that time with his microscope.....
The traditional theory that two atoms/ matter/ electrons collided together and caused a enormous explosion.
no, this is not the standard Big Bang Model,
Due to this explosion dust was created that the began to settle around the universe.
no, no dust.
It was spun into action with the right chemistry to create the sun,
the sun has nothing to do with chemistry.
then dust collected in balls and got caught within the gravitational pull of the sun and became what we know of as our planets.
nope, after several other stars had come and gone (to produce the heavy atoms) then the gases remaining formed into a protoplanetary disk. the sun and planets settled out of this. essentially your whole formation description is completely wrong
.. 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...
nope, this is nothing to do with the big bang theory.
This is known as the Big Bang theory, brought about by Charles Darwin, who invented the rest of the theory of evolution.
LOL... I have never heard anything quite so wrong. charles darwin had nothing to do with the Big Bang!!!!!!
Refute
that was a rather pointless rebuttal of a strawman of your own devising.
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. 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. 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). 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?
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...
another strawman. I won't even go into this one, since no-one has ever suggested this is how the universe works.
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. it has been recorded that the sun loses about five feet every hour. 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....
well the sun's diameter actually oscillates, so this is a false extrapolation of it's current behaviour.
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....
hm? sorry? plant life came about the same way as all other life.
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.
not really. the primordial soup is basically a chemical mix of all the chemicals that were around during the earth's formation.
One theory says a particle fell into this slime and a creature came out,
nope, this is not anyone's theory.
another says, that these fishy creatures evolved and then came out as this walking fish creature.
nope, that isn't a theory either.
Another still says (most widely held) that all life developed from a single-celled organism that evolved.
well we are getting closer. still no cigar though.
Well for that single-cell organism would be made up of hundreds, in not thousands of proteins.
well that would be the case if these early bacteria were like modern bacteria, however modern bacteria will be nothing like early bacterai since modern ones have had about 3 billion years to evolve
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).
oh, that is just spontaneous generation. no-one says that happens though. do a google search for things like self replicating chemicals and protein yypercycles.
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.
well they are made up odds on an incorrect assumption and a strawman.
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.
would it? have you ever heard of mutations or natural selection?
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?
you stab that strawman.
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.
actually sex would evolve. the evolution of sex is actually quite simple, there are books on it.
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..
you realise you are creating a strawman and burning it?
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.
sort of
Wouldn't we see the effects of said meteor today?
yes, and we have.
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?
millions of other species dies too, not just the dinos. and there are several candidates. I think one of them is just off the coast of mexico, and it's huuuuuuuuuuuge.
Now explain this? If the Bible is all false, and there was no flood, then why is the ark on Mt. Ararat?
is it? you do realise that there are several markings practically identical on ararat which all look like tha ark. it is a geological phenomenon.
Why are their fish at the tops of the mountains in the Swiss Alps?
because the alps used to be underwater see, and then plate tectonics pushed the middle of the plate upwards. take a piece of paper, and draw a fish in the middle of it. put the piece of paper on a table, and now push the ends of the paper together. see how the fish goes up in the air? it is like that.
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?
actually no. look at the numerous geology threads to see why you are wrong.
All of your arguments were completely wrong and unscientific. none of them matched anything which scientists say happened. Your cosmology was wrong, your stellar mechanics was wrong, your abiogenesis was wrong, you evolution was wrong and your plate tectonics was wrong. and you said that Darwin though of the big bang. I really suggest you get an education, a basic one will do, in these things before you talk about them. we can educate you if you are willing to listen.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
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.
ok, well I have two masters degrees in physics and I am half way though a PhD, Chi is a professional astrophysicist, and then we have other posters like JGMEERT and Frumious bandersnatch who are geologists, Lucaspa is a professor of biology and has 20 years or so experience in cellular biology.
them go for it. If the Big bang theory were true, and there had been some gravitational force from a body that didn't exsist, then the universe would all form round that and be one big blob...
see look there you are with your incorrect description of the big bang again. and the matter from the big bang provided the gravity.
But there's so much more I could have put. Even baking down to the molecular structure of life as we know it.... How much do you know about cells? And do you know that the whole Theory is based upon simple cells, because that's all darwin could see at that time with his microscope.....
see lucaspa. he knows a fair bit about cells.
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Linear Mode
