wtf happened before the big bang?

[MadSativa]

[quote=snowblind]

it is evolutionary possible to trace humans back all the way to well if you wanted to amobe in the primordial soup.

QUOTE]

no its not; it is not possible in order to have this possible we would have to prove a positve human genetic mutation which in our history of man and science the only mutation that was ever positive (according to a few) was sickel cell enemia. This is not a positive mutation at all It saved many from a malaria infested land but at a great price. in order for all of eveolution to be tru our genetic material would have had to mutate we have never seen a natual mutation which came out positive. We see it with germs and viruses but not in complex life. The fact that they took those bones and hidd them so no scientist could study and test them makes me think there is validity and great concern of why are they hiding them from us. We already see flaws in the little monkey girl that is soposed to be our missing link.

[420ultimatesmokage]

all those homos (befor human) were just yetis (sasquatch) they werent my grandparents

and you know this how?

[MadSativa]

I know this cause yetis are sitll around and monkeys are still around and humans arnt changing or showin signs of changing, we change color and grow more hair but were still human besides my grand parents were around till about 2000 they were spanish not monkeys

[420ultimatesmokage]

for god sakes if you guys want a debate about evolution make an evolution thread. the big bang and evolution are completely separate theories. im making one right now.

[MadSativa]

haha k but all signs and point to their was a big bang I respect everyons veiw on religon but even the pope has accepted that their was more than likely a big bang.

[420ultimatesmokage]

this is the last thing I'm saying about evolution in this thread. your argument is false, of course there are still going to be monkeys around. evolution is random mutations selected by non random processes. things adapt to their environment, not all results are going to be the same. evolution has no goal, just to better survival. all the monkeys and apes aren't going to turn into humans no more than horses turning into zebras. and of course we haven't seen any changes in humans, this takes hundreds of thousands of years.

[MadSativa]

we have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and if those bones would be released we could possibly prove it but untill then?????????I thought you were gonna start the evolution thread??

[420ultimatesmokage]

are you blind or something, its right below this one.

[MadSativa]

oh shit ill look I wasnt looking but well move to the next thread

[natureisawesome]

Hey,

Just got back from a week of hiking up in the olympic national
mountains.

Guess I have to get started in my responses. This is frustrating, the
thread got moved (sort of).

I think I'll just respond to stuff here in this thread and move on to
the next one. Alright.

cannabis4for20 said:

Right there!!! I understand what the bible says, but all the
bible says is that god always was, and he magically doesn't apply to
every other thing in existence.

Actually it's not magic at all, but if it was so what. You're really not
explaining your argument very well and I wish you would make sense.

So what evidence is there to make me believe that God always was
and created this universe as opposed to matter always being here, we
just might only know the big bang as the beginning and before that
everything in the universe was just sitting in space and then after the
big bang life just came to be, because there just always was a potential
for life to come into existence, but it didn't because it had nowhere to
go. Of course that's illogical, but that same argument can be applied to
god just always existing.

No it can't be applied to God also. Did you even pay attention to my
explanation? Not only is God being outside of time a logical
explanation, there really can be no other explanation because the
natural laws that exist rule that every cause must have an effect, but
outside of time and this universe that wouldn't hold true. Did you know
that the universe will slow down to a stop someday if things continue on
as they are? Did you even read the whole article I linked. This is not
that hard to understand.

makeitlegal said

Well, the whole idea of the life coming to earth is based of the
fact that there are some forms of bacteria and things like that which
can survive very extreme conditions.

You do realize that space is a vaccum right? There's no oxygen out
there. No water. That makes it a lot more difficult. You could argue
there was oxygen and water on the comet but that is just really getting
into fantasy land.

If he created everything, then why would there be so much
scientific proof of things the contradict the bible. We know that the
universe is older than the Bible says. (I'm not sure how old it says it
is but from the little big of genesis that I read it sounds like a lot
less than 13 billion years old). If I am correct, it sounds like in the
Bible that the first two people were around pretty quickly after the
universe was created. We know that there was a very long time that there
were no people on earth. In fact, if the timespan of the earth were
reduced to one minute, then humans would have only been around for 1/10
of a second.

No, we don't know that the earth is billions of years old. Radiometric
and carbon dating methods are both erroneous very very often. It often
takes more than several tries just to get anywhere near what the
scientists are looking for, in fact they often have to "play" with the
data just to get it right. The evidence we dig up from past
civilizations and the written history both show that civilization
originated right around the area where the israelites once lived and
around Egypt and Babylon. These civilations sprang up seemingly out of
nowhere, with no archeological evidence of long stanges of growth in
culture or knoledge. Some of the evidence was very advanced such as
example of the ancient pyramids in Egypt which people today still don't
understand how they were built. This is a weell known expample and
there are many many more surely. Carbon dating method does't work on
things that weren't alive like rocks either. They can only work on
things that once were alive, and all dating methods require assumptions
of sometimes very technical data going back thousands of years.

About the earth being close to the center of the universe, that
can't be, seeing as there is no center

Um I just showed you an article where a scientist from a body of well
credited scientists showed that the leading research showed that we
really are close to the center of the universe. This information wasn't
presented as a sidline view either, but something recognised on both
sides of this debate and something generally excepted. You're not a
scientist and you gave no evidence why it's not true. You just blew it
off because it's from a creationist view.

I think that if God really loved everybody and controlled
everything, he wouldn't make such horrible things happen.

Oh what horrible things are those? Creating Food, beauty,plants,
animals, the human race, being the source of love and putting the
ability to love others in us? Giving us minds and feelings and all the
Wonderful pleasures of life? For creating herbs to ease your pain and
wanting to have a relationship with you and forgive us? No, I think if
the world is messed up it's mans fault, and if God makes things tough on
us as punishment and allows us to feel the natural consequences of our
actions, that's just and good.

snowblind said:

we haven't always been consious beings, in that ultimately it is
likely that our brains evolved to the idea we posses as consousness
after our bodies became the tools they are.

this isn't reasonable. This is fantasy land. By the way, much of our so
called evolutionary adapatations are based upon the premise that the
creature evolving had a desire to survive and experience pleasure so on
so as to motivate it to survive and evolve. You know, survival of the
fittest ( Which is true, just not as part of an evolutionary framework).
But this requires a consciousness.

How sad, to think of living creatures as merely " a collection of living
parts for survival." You're really missing out.

you say there is no proof of evolutionary adaptation to its
surroundings, but this is illogical. take for example the bear. polar
and grizley. both genetically almost identical yet evolutionary
different to suit their natural surroundings. the same with artic cats
and jungle cats of the same classification yet both adapted. even more
prevelant are the insects which live in caves deep within the earth.
there is a whole evolutionary chain of insects and invertibrates that
have learnt to live without sunlight and are adapted too. there is
diversity within all the animal species for their habitat. dawrin wasn't
a sceptic of his own research at all. it is likely that the source you
read and took this from was part of the properganda surrounding his work
due to people like yourself.

Those adaptations are no macroevolution but microevolution. That term
is deceiving. The changes you're talking about are from preexisting
genetic information. That's not evolution at all, just genetic
variability. And the bugs you're talking about losing there eyesight in
caves having evolved evolutionarily either. Those bugs actually had a
loss of information. That's not evolution at all. In fact, very often,
when animals breed and have different characteristics, they lose
genetic information as times goes on. This happens often in nature.
There has never been reported or observed credibly any increase in
genetic mutation as part of darwinian evolution.
Ever.

it has already been proven that the enviroment was right to
create the nessecary acids and required chemicals and subsequent
reactions to create life. it is proven.

Absolute nonsense. Pure fiction fed to you as fact.

spontaneous evolution is not as far fetched as it seems, but it
is important to keep it in perspective. in that our dna and rna mutates
all the time and for 1000 mutant offspring that may be spawned and die
before a month, there are those that are benefited by their mutations
and survive to go and repopulate.

You're right our dna does mutate, because we're being constantly
bombarded by harmful radiation and rays from the sun. This is damaging
our dna at an incredibly rate, and many diseases we now have are caused
by this mutation. In fact, we have so many errors in our dna it's
amazing we're still alive, but thankfully more often than not the
females and them ales dna when they repoduce work together have a sort
of safegaurd action and the erroneous dna doesn't come out in the child.
The only way the rest of the offspring that didn't die off benefit is
that they have less competition for food and other needed resources.

y

ou say that man and women being alive together at the same time
is one of the biggest proofs of creationism, yet in reality it is the
biggest argument for evolution. if man where asexual it would have died
soon. men and women exist so that dna is shared and evolution can take
place. in that each offspring is the sum of two halves. therefore with
only the fittest from each sex surviving the offspring is stronger. much
in the same way we have breed cattle for centuries, to make them bigger
beeifer and inherently inbread and stupid.

No, man and woman being alive at the smae time is a miracle, and leading
evolutionsts don't have a credible answer for this. Hardly a whisper
even. And look also at the natural beauty of a man and a woman, and how they both fit together. It's obvious they were made for each other. Consider how complicated their sex organs are, let alone thier whole bodies. A womans external sex organ for instance, has a remarkable machanism for sexual stimulation that screams for a designer.Saying that two sexes would be better for survival than being asexual is a far cry from being proof of any kind of evolution. Some claims for evolution are only less rediculous than others. By the way, asexual can be more advantageous in that sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population (i.e., not changing the number of individuals), there is on average one surviving offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. But there are also benefits to sex, such as an optimal gene configureation being passed on etc. But in any case, advantages don't explain origin. But creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesnâ??t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.

if you think about the penis and the vagina they are replicated through out the hole of nature. from plants to cattle. it is a successgul delivery method of mixing the sperm and egg. and it is the most effective in mamals, ultimately why we evolved to our status above the food chain. animals with other methods, such as fish, insects, birds didnt evolve as greately as their reproduction methods are not as advanced or sucessful as ours.

There are many reproductive systems in life forms with less mental capacities that are far more successful than ours. That's nonsense.

and through man and woman you apply the human logic of love, yet this is an advanced status of thinking brought about by our rising above the food chain and stepping out of physical evolution. do you think early cave man fell in love or just spread his oats because he was the strongest and the desire to reproduce is somehting buried deep in our genetic code.

l I can say that is rubbish. In fact, aside from all the other evidence I could show you that love is not from random mutations or even ultimately dependent upon our brains , love is not good in an evolutionary world. It works against evolution and compromises survival. This is another Truth against creation. People choose love over survival every day, and pay for it. They choose love and make sacrifices, despite it being illogical in an evolutionary world with no God where love is meaningless. But people confirm the consceince God has put in them every day by this.

the trouble is the bible is at worst 2000 years old, granted the dead sea scrolls are alot older but the modern version you read from are around that age. but wait, i just want to be clear, get your copy, is it the king james version ?? so thats the one revised in 1611. which is my point. the bible and the logic you work from is as all religons are wrote from man, so unherenantly biased.

Actually I read the king James version and also the new american standard bible updated edition together and compare both and also use strongs greek and hebrew concordance with dictionaries. I suggest you download esword and try it. I'm not going to get into all that right now but the dead sea scrolls are not credible for use in producing bibles, only as a historical reference to show how old scripture is.Everyone is biased by the way including you, and the bible is not, because man didn't write it on his own. You don't believe this and so you think it's biased but you have the problem not me.

because if he created us, if he did, why did he make the flaw in us to be evil, why even give us that choice. if he is all knowing, if he is all seeing then he knew exactly what would happen, he knew it would take us milenia to understand him, he knew we would kill the non believers and he knew that his word would be split and manipulated into many different sects, who preach and wage wars in his name.

free will is not a flaw. I could easily show why, but why don't you just give it a thought. You mean if you created the universe you would want us to be robots with no true choice? We would have no real love, life would be superficial and miserable. Free choice is a gift and it's great. What's flawed is man's foolish thinking. Besides, why should all humanity suffer because of some peoples bad choices? No it's just as God said, he will will judge eferyone according to thier works.

becuase if we are god, then god works on human logic and therefore is flawed by all the above points.

You're breaking up now.

horror business said:

I'm a human, and I prefer to think of myself as an evolved human. We as humans should have evolved throughout time. We used to not believe in God until the Romans invented it (Christianity) as a tool to oppress people and kill the ones who didn't agree.

That is erroneous in several points. Romans didn't create Christianity by any means, and Religion and belief in a creator existed long before Christianity. That's just wrong.

420ultimatesmokage said:

1. from our current understanding and evidence, the universe is not going to collapse in on itself. space contains dark energy (we do not know what it is but we can measure it) which has a repulsive force. as the space between galaxies become larger so will the dark energy repulsive force, causing the galaxies to accelerate at an increasing rate.

it's true that the universe won't collapse in on itself.

3. there is a lot of evidence for the big bang. the first was discovered by Edwin Hubble who saw that all galaxies are red shifted meaning they are all moving away from us suggesting that if you turned back the clock all galaxies would come from a single place. the second big discovery and the best evidence for the big bang was made by bell labs (this won the discovers the Nobel prize). they built a radiometer for astronomy and satellite communications but they notice something strange, everywhere they pointed it there seemed to be a constant uniform source of microwave radiation. at first they thought it was faulty equipment, then thought it might be the birds in the radiometer after discounting all of the possible problems with their set up, they realized there seemed to be microwave radiation coming from every direction of space at the same temperature.

It's interesting how you Studying Redshift is how they discovered that we are close to the center of the universe. I suggest you study that page I linked to before. This is evidence for creation.

the universe started out as a minuscule point smaller than an atom. it contained some twenty pounds of matter, the rest was energy. this point was trillions upon trillions of degrees hot and for some unknown reason it exploded for lack of a better term.

It's interesting how you state that as a fact, and then you say that it exploded for some unknown reason. This is all just conjecture and is very typical and fanciful.I woyuld give a more in depth rebuttal but I'm at the library havn't got much time.

I don't appreciate your blatant unintelligent verbal abuse and slander by the way. Despite all this you're completely wrong.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics and closed systems go, Itâ??s more usual for those qualified in physical chemistry to refer to this as an isolated system, and use the term closed system for one where energy, but not matter, can be exchanged with its surroundings.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sunâ??s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

This energy input is necessary but not sufficient. The proverbial bull in a china shop produces disorder, but if the same bull was harnessed to a generator, this energy could be directed into useful work. Similarly, living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase enzyme. This is the worldâ??s tiniest motor, so tiny that 1017 could fit into a pinhead.11 Paul Boyer and John Walker won a half share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their proposal that the enzyme was a motor after the research in reference 11 (Nature articles) confirmed it. But machinery presupposes teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source


I suggest you go to Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics and search on thermodynamics. I don't agree with everything they have but they are credible scientists.

evolution is one of the most well documented scientific theories we have. the evidence is endless; Neanderthal, Australopithecus, homo erectus, cro magnon man, endosymbiosis, drug resistant microbes, fossil records, dna evidence, living fossils, vestigal structures, carbon dating, radiometric dating, the list goes on

You begin to try to point out evidence for evolution, and then you start naming one after one so called evidences for evolution that have been thrown out by leadind scientists on both sides of the debate many many years ago, and also cite shaky evidence such as carbon dating which is full of assuptions and unreliable.

vistigial organs? That what you cite as evidence for evolution? I don't have time to point out why this has been totally thrown out by any reasonable person, but I can later.

The truth is you have just been fed lie after lie after lie in science class, obvious and blatant lies and they told you it was fact and you believed them.

That's pretty quick to just block somebody. I guess you won't be able to see my reponse then.

All those homos have been discarded years ago. This is just sad.



I guess I'll move over to the other thread now. If anyone wants to respond to this you can to it there.