There is much order - have you heard of the golden ratio?
Phi Ö appears in:
The proportions of the human body
The proportions of many other animals
Plants
DNA
The solar system
Art and architecture
Music
Population growth
The stock market
The Bible and in theology
Check these out:
That’s not exactly true. Evidence that proves the Big Bang theory ranges from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR among friends ), to professor Stephen Hawking proved in a paper, that ANY cosmology consistent with Einsteins general theory of Relativity (which has been proven) must’ve started out in a singularity (Big Bang).
Now, show me evidence that some God created everything 6000 years ago. And tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million lightyears away) could get to us in ONLY 6000 years
Julibug> That’s because the irrational number pi appears when you want to calculate circles, and “flattened” circles – ellipses. Since a circle is a stable geometric form, many systems in nature prefer to use it. That doesn’t prove Creationism.
And what about the proof I just gave you for Big Bang. You just said “Faith comes into play in either big bang or creation. No one can prove either one.”
That is not right. Will you at least admit to that?
I’m not trying to take anyones religion from them. Faith is personal thing, some people need it, some people do not. But there is NO proof of Creationism. Showing me pi is not proof of Creation. The one making a positive claim carries the burden of proof.
So, if you claim the Universe was created by God 6000 years ago, you need to prove that to me.
I wasn't showing you pi to prove creation. I was in the process of putting that post together when you posted the one before it, so I didn't read it until after I posted the one about pi. Sorry for the confusion. The thing with pi was to demonstrate order in nature.
As far as scientific proof of creation - "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the sci- entific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."
That quote plus the following information came from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm. I don't have room for all the info that is there, so you should go there if you want more.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith. This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Warner on Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record, and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds. These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable. The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates. While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years. Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment. Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explana- tion of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.
Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general, monkeys, apes, and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man. The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human. Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like. Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not inter- mediate between ape and man and did not walk upright. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).
There's a lot more info on that site about the earth and it's atmosphere.
Originally posted by The Omega
The Force> So you call people who do not agree with you retarded???
You seem to know absolutely nothing about cosmology. What on Earth gave you the idea, that Big Bang just blew up and created life like that –snaps fingers –
Only hydrogen and helium were created in Big bang. Heavier elements were created in stars, and ejected into space in supernovas. Heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen, which are among the building blocks of life.
You say you want to answer questions: Well, go ahead and answer the questions I posted in my previous post then. Such as the scientific evidence for creation.1) Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.
2) Yes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.3 There are gaps in the fossil record due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. Evolutions, however, explaions the fossils. Creationists do not, and cannot account for the age of the fossils if the Earth is only 6000 years old (as Bishop Ussher calculated it to be according to the Bible).
4) Scientists don't claim that cells and multi-cell creatures came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors
5) That we can’t explain the origins of something, doesn’t prove divinity. A few hundred years ago, people had no clue how lightening worked, and even earlier that was contributed to Gods.
Before life evolved 3,8 billion years ago, the Earth atmosphere consisted mainly of CO2. The presence or not of oxygen, does not create a problem for evolution. That God appearantly first created a planet with CO2 atmosphere, and then changed his mind, is a problem for creationists.6) Define intelligent signal. Let’s assume it has a specific pattern and is as such recognisable as being send by intelligent beings, and easily seen against the background of space, as having such a pattern. It’s exactly seeing it against a disordered background, that makes it recognisable to us humans, being intelligent. But if the rest of space is so disordered, then it is by definition NOT ordered, and God made a mess.
Also: Vast information stored in DNA does not prove intelligent design. As pointed out above, there’s a lot of appallingly bad designs in nature.7) DNA codes for proteins that are either building blocks or codes for processes in the body. DNA does not code for DNA. Nonsense.
8) Just as senses evolved.
9) An arrowhead proved useful to early humans and therefore helped them survive. Do you know what fusion is? It’s what makes the sun our energy source. Fusion transform lighter elements into heavier elements. Do you really believe we do not consist of elements?
10) What three planets are you talking about? Are you talking about axis-rotation? That, say, Uranus spins around it’s “equator”? What’s wrong with that? It’s not a scientif puzzle. Impact with asteroids can force a planets spin to change. If some god created the solar-system, why the mess?
11) We currently believe the Earth was hit by a big meteor or asteroid, and the Moon was created through rejected material. Why should students be told the scientific reasons for rejecting the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What is your problem with the moons? There’s no scientific problems with moons.
12) Big Bang. Water simply consists of oxygen and hydrogen. What’s the problem with water now?
13) Through fusion. And through the growing amount of heavier elements. Older stars contain less amounts of heavier elements than younger stars. That’s a fact.
14) No, I’m not aware of unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who says the Earth is 4,5 billion years old. Again – science evolves. Which is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. Or do you claim that science is wrong? You’re not sitting by a computer?
15) What living bacteria in billion year old meteorites are YOU talking about??
16) According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light for example was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html17) Because most likely the Earth’s climate changed drastically some 12.000 years go, giving rise to flood legends in many areas on Earth. This only proves that there may’ve been a flood. The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. Why have no one found the Ark?
18) I have no idea where the claim of a recalculation of mitochondrial eve reset the date to 6000 years ago came from. Who did this recalculation? How was it done? I suspect that some creationist just made it up. It may shock you to learn this, but many creationists lie, and many more work to perpetuate the lies out of sheer, appalling ignorance.
19) Actually, no. We may be the Martians for all I know, life may’ve come here from Mars. Salt, organic chemicals etc. are not indigenous to Earth.
20) Geological features are created through such processes as erosion, Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, movement of tectonic plates, etc.
There. Easy as that. You, however, have not provided me with a single shred of evidence for Creationism. Creationism is NOT a science, since there is ZERO proof for it.
clapping
and your other posts---> I didn't say religion should govern a state, in fact if you remember it was me who originally started the thread and said it was stupid that Georgia banned teaching evolution in school. I agree with you completely, all I'm saying is that I personally believe that there is some higher thing up there *points to sky* that created the first tiny speck of a single celled organism.
As I have said before, I disagree completely with the idea that God created earth, the rest of the universe, and all life exactly as it exists today in the space of a week several thousand years before the birth of Christ. I don't entirely not believe the Big Bang theory-there is something to it, it's just that there is very little way to prove it one way or another.
julibug/Omega both---> she said phi, not pi. Big difference. The reason phi is such a common proportion is just because it is an efficient way to put things together. Furthermore, the O with the dots on top isn't the symbol for phi--it looks like an O with a capital I down the middle. 😛
Julibug> But that you’re able to perceive ORDER, means that there is also DISORDER. If everything in the Universe was ordered, you wouldn’t be able to notice it.
So that you can even point to ORDER, proves that there exists disorder.
Why didn’t you read my post to The Force???
If people just copy and paste stuff from Internet pages, but don’t even bother reading my replies, I’m just SO wasting my time.
But here we go: Don’t go physics on me 😄 I’m a physicist!
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.
So your first paragraph is, I’m sorry to say, pure nonsense and obviously written by someone who is NOT a scientist.
About the fossil-record, see reply to The Force. And please understand that not every single lifeform ever to have walked the face of the Earth becomes a fossil. May I recommend reading on HOW a fossil forms, and he prerequisites of it?
“The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years. ”
Scientists don’t talk about random events. More complex life forms are thought to have evolved from simpler lifeforms. There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.
You’re not proving Creationism. Right now you’re copying some stuff from other pages. You must have SOME proof to offer for Creationism. Please, show me the proof.
Darth> If people choose to believe in a higher being of forms, that is their business. The “popularity” of religion shows, that many people need a reason, a meaning with life, the existence of “more than meets the eye.”
As long as religious people – and I know scientists who believe in “something more” – can separate science and religion, I have no problem 🙂 There are many religious people, who do not believe in Creation as it’s written in the Bible, but see creation as Big Bang, and that the time-scale given in the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally.
Giordano Bruno, an astronomer who was arrested, tortured and burned in 1600 for claiming the stars were other suns, with other planets in orbit, said he believed it had to be so, it showed the magnificence of God.
As I mentioned above – we do have proof of Big Bang. If you want more, or to discuss the finer details of it, send me a PM – it’ll take too much space here. Just suffice it to say, that Einstein’s theory of Relativity predicts a Big Bang – his theory is among the most proven today, since he put it forward in 1915. Why should that prediction be wrong, when everything else Alberts theory predicts is true (just last year it was proven that gravity waves do travel with the speed of light – as predicted by Albert’s theory).
I was appalled to read the first post here. I thought this was the 21st century, and that no one believed in Creationism anymore. I don’t know anyone here in Europe that does, at least. Doesn’t mean there are no religious people, but Denmark at least, is a secular state.
And since no one has given me ANY proof of Creationism, it’s even more appalling. All I get is failed attempts at disproving evolution. Understand this: Disproving one theory, does not mean you’ve proven another.
Originally posted by The Omega
Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.You’re not proving Creationism. Right now you’re copying some stuff from other pages. You must have SOME proof to offer for Creationism. Please, show me the proof. [/B]
As to the snowflakes, tress, embryos, those are ordered things being formed from other ordered things. They are part of a natural cycle that may have always been in place. Why couldn't that cycle of nature have been created?
You're right - I was copying & pasting. I don't have a lot of knowledge in physics & other sciences myself. My understanding of creation and evolution has only come from what I've heard at school, and read in various places. I apologize for that. I probably won't continue in this debate, as I don't have any more "science" to offer you. 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
Just suffice it to say, that Einstein’s theory of Relativity predicts a Big Bang – his theory is among the most proven today, since he put it forward in 1915. Why should that prediction be wrong, when everything else Alberts theory predicts is true (just last year it was proven that gravity waves do travel with the speed of light – as predicted by Albert’s theory).I was appalled to read the first post here. I thought this was the 21st century, and that no one believed in Creationism anymore. I don’t know anyone here in Europe that does, at least. Doesn’t mean there are no religious people, but Denmark at least, is a secular state.
And since no one has given me ANY proof of Creationism, it’s even more appalling. All I get is failed attempts at disproving evolution. Understand this: Disproving one theory, does not mean you’ve proven another.
I thought Einstein believed in creation himself.
As to people believing in creationishm, I don't know very many people who don't.
I know disproving one theory doesn't prove another, but it at least keeps the theory a theory. It has to be proven to be a fact.
Again, I have no science to offer at this time. I'm also really busy right now with homeschool, scouts, piano lessons, etc. When I have the opportunity, I want to look into this further, for my own sake. If I find any info that I think you guys would be interested in, I will come back & post it - if this thread is still active. 😄
Btw, thanks guy for having a civil discussion on this matter!!!! 🙂
Julibug> “As to the snowflakes, tress, embryos, those are ordered things being formed from other ordered things. They are part of a natural cycle that may have always been in place. Why couldn't that cycle of nature have been created?”
Wrong way around. Prove to me that it HAS been created, please. Once again, that you’re even able to perceive order, shows that there is also disorder. You obviously think that order implies a higher being? Then the existence of disorder would disprove it, right? This isn’t scientific, it’s philosophy 😄
The way molecules are ordered in a snowflake are far more complex, than water molecules arranged in a drop of water. So – complexity can arise from less complexity if it is energetically “smart”. By freezing water, warmth is released from the water. Hence the reason we need to add warmth to ice to make it melt.
You can create more complexity if you have energy. We have a constant source of energy here on Earth. Namely the Sun.
But why do you leave the debate? There must be some proof for Creationism, why else do you believe in it?
Einstein was NOT a creationist. However, whether or not Einstein, a physicist, believed or not, does not prove (nor disprove) the existence of God.
You’re in your right not to want to discuss further. But perhaps I can, in a civilised manner 😄 ask you why you think the Bible has to be taken literally? I mean, I can easily show you some erroneous translations (errare human est – it’s human to fail), and with that in mind, perhaps this book is to be taken as a guide-line, not word by word?
Re: evolution
Originally posted by Darth Revan
I think it's really stupid that Georgia banned teaching about evolution in school, the fact is, there is a ton of stuff in the natural world that can't be explained without evolutionWhat do y'all think about it
I think that is a bit extreame. Im persuming, it is a religious influence that banned teaching about evolution.
Oh, I just don't have time to be online!! But I will probably be back in this discussion soon. Interesting thing happened. I homeschool my son, and today we started the section in science that discusses creation and evolution. Hmmmm. So, since I'll be going through all of this over the next few weeks, I'll probably be back with anything new & interesting that I find! 😉
Originally posted by The Omega
"A bit extreme"???
It's horrible! Evolution is a scientific theory, on the same standing as other sciences. What'll be next?
Banning physics? Banning chemistry? Biology?
Scary!🤪
I doubt they will ban anything that is a proven fact. I also bet they'll reverse the ban on this, too. Just wait & see.
Julibug> You’re missing a point I made earlier I think.
Evolution is on the exact same standing as other natural sciences, such as chemistry, physics, zoology etc. Saying evolution is wrong, is saying the scientific method, which all sciences are based on, is wrong.
(Looks around)
I’m still waiting for The Force to prove Creationism to me. Or consider the reply I wrote to him.
Hm. Okay, then. I guess evolution is the truth then. Which just makes what happened in Georgia even scarier.
At this point, my understanding is that adaptation within a species is obvious, but evolution from one species to another is not proven. This does not prove or disprove creation. It gives validity only to micro-evolution. So, to say evolution in it's entirity is truth is not right. Right now I cannot "prove" creation, but I also do not believe that evolution has been proven. I will study further into this over the next few days/weeks & get back.