Evolution vs. The Laws of Physics

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Should have realized that most of you were non-Christians... If you want to bash me on the grounds of my Religion, then I'll be happy to debate with you on that, for a now MUCH, MUCH more about Theology and Philiosophy then religion (go figure ).. LorentzHA and Arikay, I would love to debate with you to on whether or not God is real of the grounds on other grounds.... We'll see how it would go from there (There are other ways to prove creation other then science).

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

First, you must realize the argument was directed at another who believed that the universe regenerated itself every now and then. He based this belief on the grounds that you cannot create, nor destroy matter. Therefore the universe had to have always been. So some of the arguments were designed to go right along with what he believed, not evolution as many see it. But with that said.... I went to a few sites to find out what many said of the Big Bang theory. Here are two that sum it up..

University of Michigan
Liftoff - MSFC - NASA

The first states the theory of the Big Bang as a "cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
IN 1927 Georges Lemaître based the Big Bang on an explosion of one atom that created the universe. Edwin Hubble found evidence to justify this theory by stating that nebulas are flying away from us at speeds in per portion to their distance. It has been deemed acceptable because of the radiation, or as a way they could explain it... It ends with this statement. "Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions. "

The second is quite greater in detail. They believe the universe was created by helium and hydrogen, yet it too says the universe was created from an explosion that sent matter and antimatter rushing in every direction. The particles were hot, though began to cool almost immediately. It states that all energy and particles were contained in one sphere in the universe, before launched out in space.

At that, you can check multiple sources (even on-line) and find the theory of the Big Bang is as was stated. Right along the same lines as I previously stated, with a few slight adjustments. Darwin didn't create the Big Bang Theory, though my whole writing of the Big bang theory was along the lines of focusing in on our solar system (Though I do know the difference between solar system and Universe: Though some scientists believe there are many universes, and we're in sort of a multiverse system.. Or so I have read.

Lorentz said:
I do not think I have ever read anything more wrong.

Do you study Philosophy or Theology much? Even on this board? I've seen many things that are more incorrect (Like Islam).

It is obvious you know little or nothing of Physics, because if you did you would die of embarrassment to even post this trash.

And you have yet to disprove it. On the grounds of the popular view of the Big Bang, there would be no body of gravity to slow, or stop the flying particles of matter. And therefore they would be hurled into the deep recess of space. It's called the basic laws of gravity

Gravity - 1. Force that draws toward center of attraction
Gravitation - 1. Physics Attraction towards center; force of attraction between bodies

From the pen of Webster

What the first cause is we do not know. Deity could certainly be an explanation, although not nec. the best one.

And you don't even know why? Is it because the heavenly nebulas and such are moving away. Couldn't a "Deity" could have just set those into motion as well? Though by saying "Deity" you leave yourself wide opening for questioning. What "deity" might you be referring to?

Tying your faith to bad and/or falsified science will make them both go under-together.

Oh, but I didn't.......

Science is the study of creation QUIT trying to dumb it down!

We can go on the grounds of Christianity. The thought of a Big Bang is completely un-Biblical...... So why would you (if a Christian) believe it?

People like you drive away intellectual people from church

Really? You leave that open for several things. A. You are calling me stupid and retard, in the sense that I don't mind; I've had Muslims call me "Satan" before. Yet you do not know me, nor have seen anything of me and still you judge, which puts you in an ignorant standpoint. B. You are limiting God to only a few ways to get people into church. If I were to hinder someone (God forbid), it doesn't permitly send them out. God works in ways beyond our understanding and has made the wise stumble at the simple.... And something not coinciding with what you believe doesn't mean it will drive people away... I could go on, but this isn't the forum....

Mike said:
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.

Hmmmmm, but wouldn't it then? If there was no flood, there is a good deal of the Bible that is false. And if one part is wrong, wouldn't that make the rest in error as well? Besides that, why are there fish in the Swiss Alps?

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Jet Black said:
no, this is not the standard Big Bang Model,

Hey Jet Black,
Go to

Yahoo
Ask Jeeves
Web Crawler
Google

And look up, The Big Bang Theory. From there you will be able to tell what the standard Big Bang Theory is

no, no dust.

In accordance to the theories I found, yes. Maybe not using the word dust, but particles/matter

the sun has nothing to do with chemistry.

It does have a Chemical make-up, right? Then the Chemicals that make up the sun would to have set right, in the right place...

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

The way NASA states it, all particles/matter were gathered in one area, there weren't several stars that had come and gone.. And as a side note, where did those stars come from? But still, if you are stating that these stars were by-products of the Big Bang, then you still have to explain what gravitational force slowed down this particles/matter and formed it into a star? And where did that gravitational body come from?

nope, this is nothing to do with the big bang theory.

What? That had nothing to do with the comment I made....

LOL... I have never heard anything quite so wrong. Charles Darwin had nothing to do with the Big Bang!!!!!!

Opps, my bad... I didn't even realize as I was typing that out, at that point.. The argument was written at 2:00am, a few months ago..

that was a rather pointless rebuttal of a strawman of your own devising.

My own devising? What, my rebuttal, or the theory of the Big Bang, or both? The Big Bang that I put forward is the normal example many believe today... Look it up on the web through the search engines I provided.

another strawman. I won't even go into this one, since no-one has ever suggested this is how the universe works.

That was written to another person, the one before mentioned. Who believes the Universe cycles itself....

well the sun's diameter actually oscillates, so this is a false extrapolation of it's current behaviour.

But the sun is burning, no? And chemicals will burn themselves off, again going along the lines of the Second law of Thermodynamics. That any natural body will decay if left alone....

hm? sorry? plant life came about the same way as all other life.

I wasn't referring to that, but rather the fossil record shows that plant life has always been the same... That's what I was referring to. Although everything has changed, good old plants have always been the same.. But as a side note, why are there plants? Or I should start, what is your theory of evolution? Then I'll ask a few friendly questions Maybe even learn a thing or five

not really. the primordial soup is basically a chemical mix of all the chemicals that were around during the earth's formation.

I didn't think all chemicals could mix, and I don't see why life (if it came from this soup) wouldn't show all chemicals in each creature.... Or for that matter, why didn't the "soup" just stay "soup?" There would be n stimulating force that would give it the desire to form into something

well we are getting closer. still no cigar though.

Hmmm... That theory and the ones I posted before it are all the ones I've heard (besides the alien theory). What are the others?

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

Do you have proof of this? that they were different?

you stab that strawman.

Think of it the way the theory is portrayed.... Maybe somewhere near the lines you believe, I know not.. If this little fish creature did exist, it would see no reason to come out of water. Just as a baby eagle sees no reason of leaving the nest, it's parent has to kick it out. The same reason you don't see more evidence of worms growing legs and crawling out of the ground, even today.

actually sex would evolve. the evolution of sex is actually quite simple, there are books on it.

Why would the early creatures see the need for sexual relations to reproduce life. When they were already sexless and coming along just fine...

you realise you are creating a strawman and burning it?

yet your theory of the Big Bang does not match up to the one widely held by NASA and others. Even the one taught in public schools today, or on TV, or anywhere. You'll have to explain your view to me a little more, or allot more

I think one of them is just off the coast of mexico, and it's huuuuuuuuuuuge.

But if a meteor just larger then a house would be estimated to destroy the world, then wouldn't such a rock create the same effect by landing in the water? And wouldn't that destroy, all, life?

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.

Maybe you should go to Turkey? Because in 1660s I believe (so where around there) They went up and looked through it. It was a boat, and made of gopher wood too... Just as the Bible described it.

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.

Show me a web-page, or a book, that would prove such a theory. Because I have never heard of that one....

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.

Maybe you should read through NASA's reports, study the physical universe and it's make up.... What I believe of Evolution I have gathered through MANY different sources.. And NASA believes the same of the Big Bang that I do..... Though I will tell you I may know a good deal about science, but it's in areas here and there. I know much more about Philosophy, Theology, Demonology, ect... Maybe we can discuss the conditions of morality and truth in relation to the creation of the world

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Pete said:
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.

I assure you it was more then a week, though I wrote this whole debate for another person I few months ago. I was going into the grounds of what he believe of Evolution.... It was not on purpose that I put Darwin as the founder of the big Bang though...

Hey Phantom Llama,

YEC circles,

Is that a corny abbreviation for something. Or is a new organization Ive never heard of before?

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution in any way, shape or form by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe not to go so much into the theory of Evolution, but it does have more to do with it. It explains the creation of the universe, while writing of God. Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

Wrong. There was no collision because there was nothing to collide and no space or time for it to collide in.

Then how would it have started, if there was no time or space. No matter or anything, what exploded? By the way, NASA says you're wrong. Read the site I posted.

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.

Would it not take the effort of an outside force to condense, such as gravity... Which didn't exist.

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.

Again, you need gravity. In order to have gravity, you need some body that already was to create gravity...

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!

As i have stated before, it was my bad, I didn't mean to put him as the founder of both...

This is a misunderstanding of the Big Bang, but a forgivable one as it seems to be shared by almost everyone on the planet.

Including NASA and other organizations like it....

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.

Then what would cause the explosion?

But since they did not exist your pount is invalid.

And since they did not exist the Big Bang is invalid, and so is NASA and a good deal of renowned scientists today.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the 'Big Bang'. It was not an explosion, it was an expansion of the primordial energy point.

What.....

How can it destroy hope for life on a thing which it created that doesn't exist yet?

If there was such an explosion. Then it would be so much as to alter any hope of life, as I said. Such an explosion never creates life, only destroys..

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.

But there would be no such force..

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.

yet matter cannot be created or destroyed.. And how would the Big bang create space for everything to exist in?

This would seem to be the 'steady state' theory, which was falsified.

I wrote that section for the person I was debating with, who believed it..

But everything has not always been. Hence the big bang theory.

Then at one point there was nothing at all, period. Therefore it would be absurd to think anything could come about to create a Big Bang, to create a universe, which would create life.... You think to small

But the rest of what you say is based on chance, believe it or not.... And there are parts that don't make sense.. I would debate with you as well about morality and truth, but you would not be willing to listen.. The again, what's new???

Take a look at the moon in relation to the earth's orbital speed
You know how much faster the world would be turning 25 billion years ago? or what that would do to the oceans?

It requires much more faith to believe Evolution, and that everything happened to land how it did in life..

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Some of the quote boxes were a little wacked out... But for the most part, that should be right

Jet Black · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
stuff about the big bang

dude, dude, please... before you post more pap about the big Bang, please have a look at the wikipedia link I posted.

Lyle said:
Darwin didn't create the Big Bang Theory, though my whole writing of the Big bang theory was along the lines of focusing in on our solar system (Though I do know the difference between solar system and Universe: Though some scientists believe there are many universes, and we're in sort of a multiverse system.. Or so I have read.

that kinda stuff is all rather speculative, but no, the solar system isn't the universe. the solar system is a bunc of planets orbiting one star. there are missions of stars in our galaxy, and there are millions of galaxies in our cluster, and there are millions of clusters in the universe. pick up a basic astronomy book, it's all rather simple really.

Lyle said:
You are calling me stupid and retard,

well you aren't very well educated, but we can't blame you for that, as I said, feel free to ask us questions.

Lyle said:
in the sense that I don't mind; I've had Muslims call me "Satan" before. Yet you do not know me, nor have seen anything of me and still you judge, which puts you in an ignorant standpoint.

not really, we look at your science, see that it is totally wrong. is it fair to judge that you know very little science if what you say about the matter is wrong?

Lyle said:
Hmmmmm, but wouldn't it then? If there was no flood, there is a good deal of the Bible that is false.

that's what some atheists would like you to thing Just because something is not literally truye does not make it symbolically or metaphorically false.

Lyle said:
And if one part is wrong, wouldn't that make the rest in error as well? Besides that, why are there fish in the Swiss Alps?

dude, did you do the fish experiment yet?

take a piece of paper, and draw a bunch of fish all over it. now take the ends of the paper, and push em together. see how the middle (probably) but of the paper goes up in the air? that is just like plate tectonics that is. now see how those fish are on the top of that little paper mountain? that's how they got there! cool eh? now you can go and show your mates how fish get on mountains

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Read all my posts before replying please

Pete Harcoff · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

Nope. This is a lie perpetuated by creationists to make it seem there is a conflict where there is none. You'll find a number of Christians who post in this forum accept the findings of mainstream science and it does not affect their faith one bit.

Lyle · Nov 28, 2003

Pete Harcott said:
Nope. This is a lie perpetuated by creationists to make it seem there is a conflict where there is none. You'll find a number of Christians who post in this forum accept the findings of mainstream science and it does not affect their faith one bit.

So, does that mean they're right? There are alot of people out there who have and teach false gospels and are accepted (Benny Hiin, and the whole TBN crew... There are more though), but they aren't right.... In fact, many of them are so wrong that it's gross..... Pete, what do you believe?

LorentzHA · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
Should have realized that most of you were non-Christians...

False, sounding like your looking down your nose lyle. There are plenty of Christians here.

Lyle said:
If you want to bash me on the grounds of my Religion

Ughhh oh, Lyle you are making a very fundamental mistake. You are thinking of when the Bible says 'expect to face conflict when you speak the word of God'. You are making the mistake of thinking because you are facing resistance it is because you are speaking God's word and therefore you must be right. As we read from your posts, we know this is not the case. You are facing resistance because of your bad science data, NOT because of your belief in a Deity. I myself believe in a higher poewer, Lyle. So yo uare saying the University of Michigan's info on the Big Bang differs from what we have told you? I Graduated from Michigan Lyle with a Biology degree. They do not run a Creationist bad science platform at that school. It is one of the foremost Universities in the world. I will look at the article and see how it is different than what we have told you

Jet Black · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
Is that a corny abbreviation for something. Or is a new organization Ive never heard of before?

no, it's simple English. YEC circles is like the group of people who are YECs... you have legal circles, political circles, social circles, circles of friends and stuff like that.

Maybe not to go so much into the theory of Evolution, but it does have more to do with it. It explains the creation of the universe, while writing of God.

it is not important when talking about evolution at all dude, sorry.

Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

not at all dude, Darwin didn't for example. he simply saw Evolution as the method that God used to create.

Then how would it have started, if there was no time or space. No matter or anything, what exploded?

logical necessity, ekpyrotic, quantum tunneling, something else, and Even God

Would it not take the effort of an outside force to condense, such as gravity... Which didn't exist.

well as soon as you have matter, you have gravity, even hydrogen has gravity, simple newtonian mechanics, I think I learned it when I was about 12. cool eh?

Again, you need gravity. In order to have gravity, you need some body that already was to create gravity...

the force of gravity = G(M1)(M2)/r^2 where m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies, r is the distance between em, and G is the gravitational constant, cool eh?

Then what would cause the explosion?

it's not an explosion per se, but we dunno yet. there are a number of possibilities though

And since they did not exist the Big Bang is invalid, and so is NASA and a good deal of renowned scientists today.

you have it all wrong dude. the big bang happened, that is pretty much a certainty - red shift, the cosmic microwave background, we just don't know how it started......

take a hill, you see a rock rolling down the hill, so you know that it used to be higher up the hill. Just because you don't know what got the rock rolling but just because you don't know that doesn't mean that the rock was never higher up the hill, or that the rock isn't rolling.

What.....

If there was such an explosion. Then it would be so much as to alter any hope of life, as I said. Such an explosion never creates life, only destroys..

But there would be no such force..

wrong again dude. see in the big bang, it all used to be energy and stuff, then the energy cooled down and matter condensed out of it. eventually the prevalent matter (for reasons I cannot be bothered to go into) condensed out as mostly protons and electrons. small quantum fluctuations in this dense cloud of matter greated tiny gravitational anomalies, and as the universe expanded, these anomalies got expanded by the gravitational attreaction, and all the hydrogen collapsed into clouds. these clouds continued to collapse, and eventually you get stars. now some of these stars will have been well big, I am talking many times the size of the sun and they make our sun look like a popsickle in terms of heat. now these stars go BANG a bit like SN1987A did, and throw loads of left over hydrogen and other assorted heavy elements into space where they can then collapse again, into other stars, and perhaps even planets eventually all this stuf will run out though, which is a real shame

yet matter cannot be created or destroyed.. And how would the Big bang create space for everything to exist in?

well spacetime and amtter were created in the big bang... thing is we dunno how it started though.

I wrote that section for the person I was debating with, who believed it..

Then at one point there was nothing at all, period. Therefore it would be absurd to think anything could come about to create a Big Bang, to create a universe, which would create life.... You think to small

well quantum mechanically, if you run the time backwards you do get a non zero possibility of everything coming from nothing. but if something can't come from nothing, there are other options I mentioned a few above!

But the rest of what you say is based on chance, believe it or not.... And there are parts that don't make sense.. I would debate with you as well about morality and truth, but you would not be willing to listen.. The again, what's new???

oh you can dude, course they aren't really scientific issues per se, you might wanna go over to general apologetics for stuff like that.

Take a look at the moon in relation to the earth's orbital speed
You know how much faster the world would be turning 25 billion years ago? or what that would do to the oceans?

oh that old card again, you know those equations are really old and wrong, right?

It requires much more faith to believe Evolution, and that everything happened to land how it did in life..

dude, you haven't even mentioned evolution yet. you are just dazzling us all with you lack of knowledge of cosmology and stellar mechanics and geology so far!

MartinM · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
The first states the theory of the Big Bang as a "cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."

That's a pop science explanation. 'Explosion' is somewhat misleading, since it may lead you to suppose that it is the same thing as the explosions you are intuitively familiar with. It is not.

IN 1927 Georges Lemaître based the Big Bang on an explosion of one atom that created the universe

The 'primeval atom' referred to on that site is not an atom in the usual sense of the word. It's a poetic description, that's all.

They believe the universe was created by helium and hydrogen

No, they don't. They say that hydrogen and helium were the first elements to form, sometime after the Big Bang.

It states that all energy and particles were contained in one sphere in the universe, before launched out in space

This strongly implies that you're thinking of matter packed into a small volume in a large, empty space, then exploding outwards. This is completely wrong. Is this indeed what you were thinking?

And you have yet to disprove it. On the grounds of the popular view of the Big Bang, there would be no body of gravity to slow, or stop the flying particles of matter

Cobblers. Those 'flying particles of matter' would produce their own gravity.

LorentzHA · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
So, does that mean they're right? There are alot of people out there who have and teach false gospels and are accepted (Benny Hiin, and the whole TBN crew... There are more though), but they aren't right.... In fact, many of them are so wrong that it's gross..... Pete, what do you believe?

What makes you sure you aren't one of those people Lyle? What is right to you, if it coincides with your interpretation of the Bible?

MartinM · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
The way NASA states it, all particles/matter were gathered in one area, there weren't several stars that had come and gone

Are you thinking that 'all matter' means 'all matter as it is today'? It does not.

The Big Bang that I put forward is the normal example many believe today... Look it up on the web through the search engines I provided

No, it's a twisted, childish version of the real thing.

That any natural body will decay if left alone....

That is not the second law of thermodynamics.

Maybe you should go to Turkey? Because in 1660s I believe (so where around there) They went up and looked through it. It was a boat, and made of gopher wood too... Just as the Bible described it

Like hell. Your evidence for this claim?

And NASA believes the same of the Big Bang that I do

No, they do not.

LorentzHA · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
LorentzHA and Arikay, I would love to debate with you to on whether or not God is real of the grounds on other grounds.... We'll see how it would go from there (There are other ways to prove creation other then science).

You would love to debate us on the grounds of other grounds. LOL. In other words you want us to debate you and you can PROVE their is a God but we cannot use science to argue with you? I bet you just want to recite scripture as proof? LOL. You want to site the text from your own belief system and that is supposed to be a closed case? LOL. Every religion has a text that tells them they are correct, what makes yours different-let me guess? Because it says so, in said text! LOL. OK, so you want to debate us and can prove God by not using science. GO FOR IT-The floor is yours.

Talcos Stormweaver · Nov 28, 2003

Well, it seems we have a bit of ignorance! Not offending you but...

Is that a corny abbreviation for something. Or is a new organization Ive never heard of before?

YEC stands for Young Earth Creationism. It is a creationist belief that the earth was created in its complete form and splendor and the Earth is only a few thousand years young.

Any person that fully believes in evolution must write off God and deny that He is real.

Once again, as others have stated, this is not true. By the way, many of the christians here, who have not denied God, are posting here. Speak with them about it.

such as gravity... Which didn't exist.

Gravity is a pseudo-force acting on the matter of the universe. It is a law, not an entity which relies on (itself)* to exist.
*Based on the argument given, it would have to exist, provided the theory can not be falsified on this basis.

Again, you need gravity. In order to have gravity, you need some body that already was to create gravity

See above.

Including NASA and other organizations like it....

I do not see how NASA applies here when you have no evidence to support it.

Then what would cause the explosion?

God (in my opinion)! Maybe a purple fairy named Eri!
That is beyond the present field of science, which studies everything but the supernatural.

And since they did not exist the Big Bang is invalid, and so is NASA and a good deal of renowned scientists today.

So NASA is right, but then it is wrong? (see above)

What...

His point is that it was not a direct act of creation. Rather yet, it was the act of allocating space and energy to form the basic building blocks of life, which ultimately formed life many years later.

If there was such an explosion. Then it would be so much as to alter any hope of life, as I said. Such an explosion never creates life, only destroys..

Ignorant statement! To state that it would never create life is a statement which you can not support by any means.

Hey Jet Black,
Go to

Yahoo
Ask Jeeves
Web Crawler
Google

And look up, The Big Bang Theory. From there you will be able to tell what the standard Big Bang Theory is

I see he was right.

In accordance to the theories I found, yes. Maybe not using the word dust, but particles/matter

Two seperate things: Dust, and particles. Dust is far too specific.

All that I have time for, perhaps I can fill out a more complete response next time.

ForeRunner · Nov 28, 2003

Hi everyone. I have been lurking these boards for over a year (mostly this one), so there is no need to introduce yourselves, I know the common players.

Today I decided to post in order to help our poor misguided Lyle along. Lyle, before you post here again I am going to suggest to you a (very) short list of books on physics that were written for the average person.

Explainations of Modern Physics:
Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time
The Universe in a Nutshell
The Theory of everything: The Orgin and Fate
of the Universe

If you can, get ahold of the illistrated editions, the diagrams are excellent.

Then, for a good history of Modern Physics pick up Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. It is a bit old by physics standards (copyright 1994) but it still gives a very thorough progresson of modern physics.

There are two other books that I am personally fond of, these deal with theology, philosopy and physics.

Fritjof Capra - The Tao of Physics
Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy

If you take the time to read through and think about the ideas presented in these books you'll recieve a much better understanding of what physics is. I suggested starting with Stephen Hawking's books because I think they are the easiest to understand. I also believe it is possible for a person without formal training in physics to understand these concepts. I have had no college physics courses and my mathmatics is only up to Calculus II and Discrete Mathmatics, yet I am able to read through the published physics journals in my university, and nearby universities (Brown) and understand the concepts that they present (I don't understand the Math and I couldn't critique them however, I'll leave that to the pros).

In any event, my advice to you is to start there and come back when you have the ability to not completely butcher established science.

P.S. For the pros here, please add to my books list. I usually find publications by looking up people mentioned in other publications... I am certain there are things I have missed not being in the Science field.

Edit: Holy Typos, Batman!

Jet Black · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle said:
And look up, The Big Bang Theory. From there you will be able to tell what the standard Big Bang Theory is

dude, I have 2 degrees in physics, I think I should know yeah? besides the internet is full of rubbish!

It does have a Chemical make-up, right? Then the Chemicals that make up the sun would to have set right, in the right place...

not at all dude, it's mostly just hydrogen! and hydrogen gets formed from the cooling big bang!

The way NASA states it, all particles/matter were gathered in one area, there weren't several stars that had come and gone.. And as a side note, where did those stars come from?

I explained this stuff in the last post, so I won't go into it again here.

But still, if you are stating that these stars were by-products of the Big Bang, then you still have to explain what gravitational force slowed down this particles/matter and formed it into a star? And where did that gravitational body come from?

the matter from the big bang itself!

What? That had nothing to do with the comment I made....

it did dude, your comment was flat out wrong.

My own devising? What, my rebuttal, or the theory of the Big Bang, or both?

your made up version of the big bang. It ain't waht happebed!

The Big Bang that I put forward is the normal example many believe today... Look it up on the web through the search engines I provided.

no it ain't dude. I have two physics masters derees! I know this stuff.

But the sun is burning, no? And chemicals will burn themselves off, again going along the lines of the Second law of Thermodynamics. That any natural body will decay if left alone....

nuclear fusion dude, not chemical burning! and yeah it will run out sometime though.

I wasn't referring to that, but rather the fossil record shows that plant life has always been the same...

not at all dude, the fossil record shows that plants have changed dramatically.

That's what I was referring to. Although everything has changed, good old plants have always been the same.. But as a side note, why are there plants?

well they would have started off as simple organisms that used light to survive.

Or I should start, what is your theory of evolution?

roughtly, descent with modification and natural selection.

I didn't think all chemicals could mix, and I don't see why life (if it came from this soup) wouldn't show all chemicals in each creature.... Or for that matter, why didn't the "soup" just stay "soup?" There would be n stimulating force that would give it the desire to form into something

oh yeah they can. not all react though. as to why the early mix of chemicals formed life, well that is to do with chemical reactions of amino acids and stuff like that. they would have formed simple self replicators, which changed and so on and life emerged!

Hmmm... That theory and the ones I posted before it are all the ones I've heard (besides the alien theory). What are the others?

you wanna look up some proper papers on abiogenesis.

Do you have proof of this? that they were different?

do you have any proof that they would have had to start out as they are? thing is, stuff like bacteria and simple things don't fossilise that easily. There are a number of neat papers on protein hypercycles and an experiment done by a guy called fox. I will see if I can find them.

Think of it the way the theory is portrayed.... Maybe somewhere near the lines you believe, I know not.. If this little fish creature did exist, it would see no reason to come out of water.

eever heard of mudskippers? see, as soon as something is even remotely successful in an unoccupied niche, it will take over that niche and proliferate in that niche. eventually it will end up competing with others of it's own kind in that niche and then diversity arises!

Just as a baby eagle sees no reason of leaving the nest, it's parent has to kick it out. The same reason you don't see more evidence of worms growing legs and crawling out of the ground, even today.

totally different thinking dude.

Why would the early creatures see the need for sexual relations to reproduce life. When they were already sexless and coming along just fine...

well those bacteria and yeast that did swap genes with one another would have been significantly more successful, since they could inherit beneficial mutations from soemone else too! cool eh?

yet your theory of the Big Bang does not match up to the one widely held by NASA and others. Even the one taught in public schools today, or on TV, or anywhere. You'll have to explain your view to me a little more, or allot more

actually dude, mine does. It's called the standard model, and I spent some good part of my first degree learning it!

But if a meteor just larger then a house would be estimated to destroy the world, then wouldn't such a rock create the same effect by landing in the water? And wouldn't that destroy, all, life?

This sin't no cheap sci fi flick, it isn't going to blow up the planet or anything, some stuff will survive!

Maybe you should go to Turkey? Because in 1660s I believe (so where around there) They went up and looked through it. It was a boat, and made of gopher wood too... Just as the Bible described it.

maybe you should, cos it ain't there dude.

Show me a web-page, or a book, that would prove such a theory. Because I have never heard of that one....

this is like elementary plate tectonics, have you never heard of plate tectonics before? did you know that everest is still going up?

Maybe you should read through NASA's reports, study the physical universe and it's make up.... What I believe of Evolution I have gathered through MANY different sources..

me too, all yours seem to be wrong. I got my knowledge from biology professors and university libraries.

And NASA believes the same of the Big Bang that I do.....

not at all dude.

Though I will tell you I may know a good deal about science, but it's in areas here and there.

sorry dude, I have two physics degrees, I know a shed load more than you. You're wrong, sorry about that. feel free to ask us to educate you though.

LorentzHA · Nov 28, 2003

Lyle. The second Law of Thermo speaks to the amount of energy available in a system, to do work. When I was going to Bible study I had people why barely made it out of High School telling others to use that argument when facing non-believers. 1. It does not prove a God and 2. How can you use a scientific argument when you are not even sure what it is about or what it means, Lyle?

I left the church becuse the ignorance was FRIGHTENING.

So Lyle, you speak out against science but YET try to use scienctific Laws that you do not even understand as your way of "proving God". Lyle, I left church because of nonsense like this. Should you really be speaking on subject with, false authority and pride, that you are not even in the slightest way familar with except in name only!?

Without going to the web Lyle, would yo umind explaining to me, in your own words, what the FIRST law of Thermo states and why? Kind of get what I am driving at here?

LorentzHA · Nov 28, 2003

ForeRunner said:
Hi everyone. I have been lurking these boards for over a year (mostly this one), so there is no need to introduce yourselves, I know the common players.

Today I decided to post in order to help our poor misguided Lyle along. Lyle, before you post here again I am going to suggest to you a (very) short list of books on physics that were written for the average person.

Explainations of Modern Physics:
Stephen Hawking - A Brief History of Time
The Universe in a Nutshell
The Theory of everything: The Orgin and Fate
of the Universe

If you can, get ahold of the illistrated editions, the diagrams are excellent.

Then, for a good history of Modern Physics pick up Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. It is a bit old by physics standards (copyright 1994) but it still gives a very thorough progresson of modern physics.

There are two other books that I am presonally fond of, these deal with theology, philosopy and physics.

Fritjof Capra - The Tao of Physics
Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy

If you take the time to read through and think about the ideas presented in these books you'll recieve a much better understanding of what physics is. I suggested starting with Stephen Hawking's books because I think they are the easiest to understand. I also believe it is possible for a person without formal training in physics to understand these concepts. I have had no college physics courses and my mathmatics is only up to Calculus II and Discrete Mathmatics, yet I am able to read through the published physics journals in my university, and nearby universities (Brown) and understand the concepts that they present (I don't understand the Math and I couldn't critique them however, I'll leave that to the pros).

In any event, my advice to you is to start there and come back when you have the ability to not completely butcher established science.

P.S. For the pros here, please add to my books list. I usually find publications by looking up people mentioned in other publications... I am certain there are things I have missed not being in the Science feild.

Yes. And they are excellent books! Thanks for pointing these out to him!

Evolution vs. The Laws of Physics

I am last minute stuff

I am last minute stuff

I am last minute stuff

I am last minute stuff

I am last minute stuff

Jet Black

Guest

I am last minute stuff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

I am last minute stuff

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Jet Black

Guest

GondolierAce

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

GondolierAce

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Fighter of Ignorance!

ForeRunner

Guest

Jet Black

Guest

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency