Jump to content


Photo

Why Evolution is a Myth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

#1 Fisher

Fisher

    Newcomer

  • Newcomer
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 12
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Palmetto, Georgia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 02:51 PM

Alright, as we all know, the evolutionists believe that we all came from nothing 4.6 billion years ago. Over a long period of time all this nothingness compacted into a dot. :D Over millions of years this dot began to spin and it started spinning so fast that it exploded. And then after billions of years life popped up and here we are today.
I have a few questions for you evolutionists.

1) Where did the dirt to fill that dot come from?
2) Where did the energy to compress that nothingness come from?
3) Where did the energy to get that dot spinning come from?
4) Why are some of the galaxies spinning backwards? According to the law of Angular Momentum all the galaxies would be spinning in the same direction as the dot was spinning all those years ago. :D

#2 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 17 March 2005 - 06:44 PM

Alright, as we all know, the evolutionists believe that we all came from nothing 4.6 billion years ago. Over a long period of time all this nothingness compacted into a dot. :D  Over millions of years this dot began to spin and it started spinning so fast that it exploded. And then after billions of years life popped up and here we are today.
I have a few questions for you evolutionists.

1) Where did the dirt to fill that dot come from?
2) Where did the energy to compress that nothingness come from?
3) Where did the energy to get that dot spinning come from?
4) Why are some of the galaxies spinning backwards? According to the law of Angular Momentum all the galaxies would be spinning in the same direction as the dot was spinning all those years ago. :D

View Post


I assume that you are talking about the Big Bang, and if so you are extremely misguided. First of all the “dot” you are referring to is what physicists call a singularity. Scientists can only really talk about the universe (including Big Bang theory) from the Plank time (~10^-44 sec) on. And the “dot” was not full of dirt. You see, dirt is made up of molecules, molecules are in turn made of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and quarks are the limit to experimental verification as of now. However quarks are formed and combined is what scientists believe was the result of the Big Bang.

Anyway, here are some links:
http://www.umich.edu...265/bigbang.htm

http://cosmology.ber...ang_Primer.html



And how do you explain this:

Posted Image

Read all about this here: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/


Now if we know the universe is expanding, is it not logical to assume that in the past it was much denser?

#3 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 17 March 2005 - 06:57 PM

One comment-

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

#4 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:18 PM

OC1 - your point is indeed a valid one ... at this stage nobody has established the connection between the FORUM TOPIC evolution and this thread about origin of the universe.

If nobody does make the coinnection ... I would be inclined to move all this to a more general place of debate. We used to have a section for more open topics before the previous board was hacked.... Let me wait for a response to your point first, while I investigate whether a better topic are is available.

#5 Fisher

Fisher

    Newcomer

  • Newcomer
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 12
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Palmetto, Georgia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:24 PM

I assume that you are talking about the Big Bang, and if so you are extremely misguided.  First of all the “dot” you are referring to is what physicists call a singularity.  Scientists can only really talk about the universe (including Big Bang theory) from the Plank time (~10^-44 sec) on.  And the “dot” was not full of dirt.  You see, dirt is made up of molecules, molecules are in turn made of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and quarks are the limit to experimental verification as of now.  However quarks are formed and combined is what scientists believe was the result of the Big Bang. 

Anyway, here are some links:
http://www.umich.edu...265/bigbang.htm

http://cosmology.ber...ang_Primer.html
And how do you explain this:

Posted Image

Read all about this here:  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now if we know the universe is expanding, is it not logical to assume that in the past it was much denser?

View Post


So, what you are saying is that the singularity was filled with quarks. Where did they come from?

#6 Fisher

Fisher

    Newcomer

  • Newcomer
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 12
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Palmetto, Georgia

Posted 17 March 2005 - 07:26 PM

One comment-

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

View Post


If it doesn't then I would like to know how you think we got here.
I believe that in the beggining God created the universe.

#7 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 08:12 PM

Fisher

I can only completely agree with you (for what my opinion is worth) that God got us here.

But I still dont see yet why this thread should be placed on the Evolution Science part of a Forum. You are welcome to help me see more clearly.

As I see it so far ... Maybe the best fit is on a philosophical debate about God's existence or a science debate on the Universal Origins / Cosmology.

Can you help me decide... Would a complete win or loss for your position be a compelling nail primarily in the coffin of evolution? Would debate here enlighten the task of interpreting the pros and cons of evolution?

Thanks

#8 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 17 March 2005 - 08:34 PM

For what it's worth, i don't particularly care or mind if the occaisional post goes into the "wrong" section of the forum.

But what does bother me is the comingling of evolutionary theory with other ideas, like the origins of the universe, radiometric dating, abiogenesis, etc.

All these things are certainly worthy of discussion, but they should not be discussed as being part of "evolutionary theory", because they are not!

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 March 2005 - 09:32 PM

I would have to agree about this thread being all over the place. You need to pick one subject to discuss. With little variance from that subject. I realize that a thread can go other places, and when it's productive, and people are learning, I tend to just keep an eye on it. But this thread started out this way, and I realize you are new here.

Also the attitude could use a little toneing down. And the use of the word "lie" needs to be substituted for something else. Like the word myth, or untruth. Lie is used to provoke. Myth only calls the subject a name. Lie gets a little more personal and can cause problems.

Instead of deleting this thread, I'm going to close it so the new member can pick what subject from this thread he or she wants to discuss, and start another with less attitude. I do realize that your probably used to this type of discussion that is done in this type of manner and attitude, but here at this forum. we are trying to change this and have a more laid back debate on the issues.

It's a new idea, and we have been working the bugs out. But we do have people from both sides that are starting to enjoy the discussions here without so much attitude. Hope you understand.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users