Here's another one for ya, Sir Real: So you think you can explain Earth's history! Well then, explain to me how the universe came to be. Where did all of these gasses and such come from? How old is the universe? I see us in the same boat. You don't know the answers. I know more than you, because I know God. I am also humble enough to know that I won't know all of the answers until I meet the creator of all that you study.

------------------
http://members.aol.com/amandaisflirt...s/tradesig.jpg
Captain of Bouncers, Boogre Bar

LH Member


"I've had it up to here, listening to a small segment of people try to put down America! America's the greatest land on Earth, and we oughta be proud of what we have! I'm proud of America, I'm proud of our people, and I'm gonna prove it. We're American and DAMN proud of it! Frankly I'm getting a little ticked off...go ta ****"... Dink (if anyone knows who originally said this, please let me know!)

Theory is just that theory ie unproven but believed to be true!! not fact, hell go read my answers on the other thread as this is pointless!.

As for the oldest scrolls that are nwould speak of creation because they did not have the science to prove otherwise, we do. HEll they believe the earth was FLAT!!!!!

Fine you believe that all humans came from two people and I hope you enjoy dateing you relatives becuse that what we all are then!
Beside how would explian the various devions of human, from asian, black and abroingy to white? OR the historic fossil or the fact that such a sallow gene pool would of cause humanty to become steril and die of long ago.
Oh and were did CAin and Ables are their kids, how did Cain after killing Able move to different valley and marry someone there if Adam and Eve were the only other humans?

When the big bang happened it fused helium and hydrogn (Which were created during the 'bang') togeather, making a star which nukurl reaction cause sub-atomic atoms fo shift positions making new substances.
As for the age it over 13 billion or so years old.
Oh as for god only knowing the answer, How do you know that I am not it?

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 10-31-2001).]

A theory does have proof, just not enough to yet be accepted as law. A hypothesis is a speculation, an educated guess that something is true. There is a clear difference, and what you are talking about is not a theory yet.

The bible never said the earth was flat, and actually that was not the standing belief of all people. Many sailors knew by the curve of the horizon that this wasn't the case. It just makes a good tale to say that Columbus was the first to think it was round.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

Where did there Helium nad Hydrogen come from? The Quantum phsyisis that get paid the "big bucks" to think and study this won't even agree with you on that.
It was 10 to the minus 43, of a second after the big bang before any of the known laws of phsyics begin to apply! ( I misquote in the earlier post, sorry) National geographic magazine Oct 1999.



------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

Interesting topic. Personally I believe that God did create everything......but I am also a scientist, well engineer in training. I believe that the genesis story is purely symbolic.....and that evolution and the big bang may of course be true. In fact I believe they were tools used by the creator. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the world was created randomly than to believe it was created by an all-powerful being. Aethiests have far more faith than Christians therefore. Their faith is that there is no creator. Therefore they either cannot explain where everything came from, or cling tightly to their science and randomness? Who created science? Who created randomness? What happened before the big bang? Where did the particles come from to build up the pressure to cause the big bang? Ok u might explain that....but then u'd have to explain what happened to cause the thing that caused the big bang to happen. It is an infinite process. Just like splitting atoms is an infinite process...u can always go smaller. Counting is an infinite process. Humans cannot comprehend infinity....we can never count to infinity. Computers will never be able to comprehend infinity...though they will comprehend greater numbers than humans. So someone must have created infinity. Someone (thing) that is beyond infinity. Beyond human comprehension. There is no other explanation. Everything had to start somewhere/somehow/sometime. Only an infinite being has no beginning and no end. You might call it God, Allah, or whatever you want. It is there....there is absolutely no other explanation.

And this is all besides all the other evidence. I see ppl who don't see all this as mentally blind.

Originally posted by Vaskez:
It takes a lot more faith to believe that the world was created randomly than to believe it was created by an all-powerful being.

beautifuly put http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif


Originally posted by John D Harris:
The Quantum phsyisis that get paid the "big bucks" to think and study this won't even agree with you on that.

you're kidding, aren't you? physicist and big bucks... yeah right http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif sorry to disapoint you, but physicists are very far from rich; and would you believe it - they're not in it for the money. just thought I'd point that out...


on-topic now...
to all who claim they don't believe in evolution, I do suggest you read this link.
here's just an extract regarding 'dictionary' definitions of evolution:
These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

this was just a randomly picked link google came up with when I did a search on evolution. there are many more that can help give the general public a correct idea of just what evolution is about.
now, I'm not an expert on evolution or biology, I'm actually a student of astronomy. but as someone walking down the scientific path of education I have become strongly aware that the general public often has a grossly flawed view of scientific research and theories. the fact is, it is generally VERY HARD to describe the idea of a specific theory to the laymen without simplefying it to the point where it's coherency and foundation become blurred.

I simply ask that you do give some thought into the subject and try to understand that the scientists who devote their lives to studying a specific subject DO HAVE a great deal more knowledge about it than you. it could be that when you're yelling out 'I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR THEORY' you might even have the very basics of it wrong (quite possibly by no fault of your own).


ok, now flame away http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

------------------


[This message has been edited by frudi_x (edited 10-31-2001).]

You are quite right. The simplest way to state the definition is "descent with modification". However, as you said, the term is very confused nowdays, and encompasses many other points besides this one. Because of that, I call the proven scientific evolution natural selection, and consider evolution to mean the whole works, as that appears to be how the masses view it.

this is another piece of what is written on the link posted above. I thought it captures the essence of where this discussion has gone wrong;

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

frudi_x,
"Big Bucks" is an expression meaning the one or ones in charge or in this case the ones doing the research and theorising on the subject of how the big bang came about http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif

------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!