Thread: middle east again...

<"Where did the space for the universe come from?"

Big bang >

The big bang theory has never been proven, there is no evidence partaking to the theory that life originated on earth due to the climet change brought about by an explosion in space.


<"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.>



<Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on the out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only real basis on which evolution could occur. As Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all" (J. Edison Adams, Plants: An Introduction to Modern Biology, 1967, p. 585).>

Not only has the theory of life originating from nothing been proven wrong, Darwin even refutes his own theorys.

I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin, he went to Medical school for two years then dropped out, he had no degree in science at all. And he delt heavily in witchcraft.

Don't believe this? Go to http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=29

The part about Darwin is about two thirds down the page.

<"NONliving matter is dead matter. When something isn't living, it is dead. "

WRONG, dead things were once alive, non-living things were never alive. >

......And never can be.

If something was alive, it is called dead, if something has never been alive it will always stay that way...nonliving things can never become living.

"The big bang theory has never been proven, there is no evidence partaking to the theory that life originated on earth due to the climet change brought about by an explosion in space. "

"Proven", is a fairly useless term, there is no such thing as "proven", there are theories that fit the facts better than any other theory, there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang: You can see the after effects your self, get your T.V. and put it on a channel that hasn't been tuned in, that static you see, is your T.V picking up the background radiation left by the big bang.

"<"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.> "

Oh excellent we are playing the "lets quote people out of context game" woop-di-do. *sigh*

first go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

Perhaps you should include his FULL quote:

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote. "

The reason is that only a tiny tiny proportion of the animals that die become fossilised, so that compared to the number of organisms that have lived, the number of fossils is minute. Of the fossils we have we see exactly what we would expect to see: species gradually evolving.

"Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation"

LOL this is a classic one, *sigh* heavens, read this:

KH (creationist): Then we'd have to have organic evolution, that's the origin of life. Nobody's ever seen non-living material come alive; Redi and Pasteur proved it doesn't happen.


This Hovind Fairy Tale confuses "spontaneous generation" with "abiogenesis". The two are not the same, and anyone with a decent science background knows the difference. "Spontaneous generation" is the notion that inanimate matter could suddenly give rise to fully formed animals - maggots literally being generated from rotting meat. Redi did disprove this in the 1600s, as did Spallanzi in 1768; the idea was finally put to rest by Pasteur in the mid 1800s. But this is not the concept that scientists mean when the origin of life is discussed. "Abiogenesis" refers specifically to the origin of self-replicating molecules - not cells, and certainly not maggots - from inorganic chemicals. Life from inanimate matter (ie, maggots from rotting meat) is not the same concept as organic chemicals organizing, forming complex structures and reproducing, but it sounds pretty close to the general public, and Hovind exploits this weakness. For a discussion of abiogenesis and the creationist misuse of Redi and Pasteur in this context, see http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr98.html and also Ian Musgrave's FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html. "


"Not only has the theory of life originating from nothing been proven wrong, Darwin even refutes his own theorys."

Bzzzt.

"Darwin even refutes his own theorys. "

Bzzzt.

"I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin, he went to Medical school for two years then dropped out, he had no degree in science at all. And he delt heavily in witchcraft"

And? Faraday was a book-binder, Newton was thought to be a sadist, your point?

>> I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin

Like, for instance, that he was a Christian?

>>he went to Medical school for two years then dropped out

Do you know how well Einstein did in Math class? I echo Clyde: Your point?


>>Not only has the theory of life originating from nothing been proven wrong

You are correct in a assuming that life from nothing would be an illogical process. Something from nothing is a bit of a contradiction. However, nobody has ever said life came from nothing (except Creationists). This point has been previously explained so i'm not going to waste by breath... (fingers? )


>>theory that life originated on earth due to the climet change brought about by an explosion in space.

Doh. Doh. Doh. ... ... Doh!
The statement is again correct. And again irrelevant and immaterial. "an explosion in space." Doh. *bangs head on wall*

I just re-read this........ are you saying "there is no evidence that life originated on Earth due to a climate change brought about by an explosion in space(the big bang!???!?!?)"

Errr.... right..... and.....? That has what to do with evolution?

Not only that, but this person obviously has some reading up to do on the big bang theory. It did NOT go as you appear to believe: "Bang! Heres some planets."

That and the word 'explosion' has destructive conotations where as the big bang was not so much an explosion as a sudden expansion. But lets keep this off topic discussion on topic. We're talking about evolution, not creation... Although I suppose its just an earlier part of the same thing.

"And yet, Clyde, Gould did say it. Obviously, some scientists are not seeing the mountains of evidence...
I'll post more later"

"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless...In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed.""

*sigh* That quote is either out of context or it is a fabrication, if it's genuine he may be talking about punctuated equilibrium.

You DO see hybrids in the fossil record, see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Here is Gould himself talking about the topic of your misquote/fabrication:
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/...leviathan.html

We can SEE evolution happening right under our noses, as well as the obvious bacterial evolution we see in labs, we also see it happening in nature:

"Ken Ham(creationist): ... what's something that you think is absolutely convincing that evolution is true?"

Dr Steve Jones (geneticist) replied, "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one
stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime."

-And Dr. Jones answers correctly. What's the best evidence for evolution? Well, that we've seen it happen. Not unlike the best evidence for gravity is that things tend to stay more or less down."

>>about the telescopic time travel

... You been at the wacky tobaccy again seditee? Its not time travel. Its merely that the light takes time to reach your eye. The more distance it has to travel, obviously the longer it takes. 1 light year is the distance light can travel in 1 years time. This is a very large distance. 5.88 x 1012 miles i believe. Thus, if you're looking at something 5.88 x 1012 miles away from you it took the light one year to reach your eye. That means that you're seeing the object as it was 1 year previous.

>>you said that soon scientists would understand conciousness

I dont have specific links but research in neurology has been steadily advancing. Do a search on that topic.


>>By the way, the seven "days" of creation can also be translated "ages".

We're not debating God/No-God (this time) . We're mainly talking about the evolution of organisms; A subject that has many more facts to back it up.

"However most other protestant churches do not agree whatsoever with this. If the Bible is not true, than there is no basis for faith."

The bible being literally true, is contrary to everything we have discovered about the universe, there are stars so far away that the light takes millions of years to reach us, yet the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old.... WOOPS.

And i think you'll find that the bible says that men have one less rib than women....... when actualy they er... don't.

Oh and Noah's flood:

http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/S...gins/flood.htm

and this one is a classic, it gives a brilliant example of precisely why the bible CANNOT possibly be literally true:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html

"By the way, would anyone like to try to find any internal contradictions in the Bible? "

LOL sure:

"The first chapter of Genesis describes a six-day creation: on the first day, God created light. On the second day, God created Heaven by making a division between the waters which apparently engulfed the universe. On the third day, God created dry land by gathering together the waters beneath Heaven, then created the seas, grass, herbs, and fruit trees. On the fourth day, God put the sun, the moon, and the stars in Heaven, beneath the upper layer of the waters which he had divided on the second day. On the fifth day, God created sea creatures and birds. On the sixth day, God first created land creatures, and then He created man.

Of course, we know that there are no waters above the stars, and that fruit trees did not exist before the first aquatic creatures, and that the earth (much less grass, herbs, and fruit trees) did not exist before the sun or the stars. But lets put aside all of these problems with a literal Genesis 1, for the moment, and focus on how Genesis 1 compares with the next creation story in the Book of Genesis.

The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.[1]

At most, only one of the two stories can be literally correct. Creationists use all sorts of rhetorical and interpretive ploys to try to deny the contradiction between the first two chapters of Genesis, thereby violating their own precept that the Bible must be read literally. Modern biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 do conflict. The two accounts were, after all, written centuries apart, and in very different cultural contexts. To believe in a completely literal rendition of the Book of Genesis is thus to claim that God inspired a self-contradictory set of writings. Apparently the creationists, as much as they claim to worship God, actually believe Him to be exceedingly stupid.

When the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis are appreciated for what they truly are -- allegories inspired by God, or myths designed by the ancient Hebrews -- only then does the Book of Genesis no contradict itself or the discoveries of science."

Hows that for a wopping internal contradiction

There are also a couple on this site:

http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/S...gins/flood.htm

"Finally, Clyde, you said that soon scientists would understand conciousness. Do you know of any experiments to this effect, especially anywhere I could look on the web?"

There have been dozens of experiements that show that the brain "creates" conciousness, your best bet is to do a search for neurology as lightatdawn said.