Origin of the Universe

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by TomStrife

BTW, responding to what someone else said. The Big Bang happened umerous times until it worked.
If that`s the case, even if it did work, why didn`t it happen again.
Exactly! How would "matter" know if it is perfect.
Another reason that you are wrong is because matter cannot appear out of nothing. Once the universe was created, no more matter came into existance.

couldn't have worded it any better myself =)

matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. at least not since matter came into existance

[Maridia]

Ambika is right, people were shorter years ago. Look at people from medievil times. If you look at alot of knight armor they only stood at something like 5' 6". people weren't tall, it's only when people started to finally become culturally diverse by breeding with other people than just their own. Like how an Irish catholic woman would marry an Irish Catholic man.

but to stay on track I think it may have just been coincidence. The thought of being spawned of more than nothing than an atom is weird but I'll say it has me better than the whole Adam and Ever story. I have no proof to support the claim that we came from one or the other. It's just that science tries to be logical. I don't totally understand what supposedly happened but it honestly doesn't bother me. I know I'm alive and here today, and that's what matters to me, where I cam efrom is a good question, but I won't lose sleep at night because of it. The Adam and Eve thing just doesn't suit me right. Sure it's possible but it just seems weird to me. I mean yeah there was the garden blah blah, but Adam was actually in the original context of the bible supposed to have 3 wives. 1 was his first one I can't remember her name, but she's supposed to be the snake woman. well she didn't like him because she was sexually frustrated with him, no joke, she left him for that reason. Then the second wife was a fake wife he made of mud. I'm not joking, I know this because I know someone who learned all this from college, he studied religion and philosophy so this is true, this was in the original context of the bible, obviously it's been taken out since. Then after that he found Eve. not the story you heard but I know this is what was written, so you can't blame me there. Anyway back on track I just find it confusing to believe that a story with a mud wife and with how sinister everything is. I don't see how we're supposed to believe in a story like that, it's just well to put it nicely goofy. I believe in a god, but and I wasn't trying to bash god by any means. I'm just trying to stress the point that it's hard for me to believe that in that story it explains where people came from. I don't agree with either but you can guess which one I'm gonna have to go with on this one.

[TomStrife]

Originally Posted by Setzer

Ambika is right, people were shorter years ago. Look at people from medievil times. If you look at alot of knight armor they only stood at something like 5' 6". people weren't tall, it's only when people started to finally become culturally diverse by breeding with other people than just their own. Like how an Irish catholic woman would marry an Irish Catholic man.

but to stay on track I think it may have just been coincidence. The thought of being spawned of more than nothing than an atom is weird but I'll say it has me better than the whole Adam and Ever story. I have no proof to support the claim that we came from one or the other. It's just that science tries to be logical. I don't totally understand what supposedly happened but it honestly doesn't bother me. I know I'm alive and here today, and that's what matters to me, where I cam efrom is a good question, but I won't lose sleep at night because of it. The Adam and Eve thing just doesn't suit me right. Sure it's possible but it just seems weird to me. I mean yeah there was the garden blah blah, but Adam was actually in the original context of the bible supposed to have 3 wives. 1 was his first one I can't remember her name, but she's supposed to be the snake woman. well she didn't like him because she was sexually frustrated with him, no joke, she left him for that reason. Then the second wife was a fake wife he made of mud. I'm not joking, I know this because I know someone who learned all this from college, he studied religion and philosophy so this is true, this was in the original context of the bible, obviously it's been taken out since. Then after that he found Eve. not the story you heard but I know this is what was written, so you can't blame me there. Anyway back on track I just find it confusing to believe that a story with a mud wife and with how sinister everything is. I don't see how we're supposed to believe in a story like that, it's just well to put it nicely goofy. I believe in a god, but and I wasn't trying to bash god by any means. I'm just trying to stress the point that it's hard for me to believe that in that story it explains where people came from. I don't agree with either but you can guess which one I'm gonna have to go with on this one.

What the crap are you talking about?
Eve was formed from Adam`s rib and was declared the first woman.

There was one wife of Adam. Eve. No one else.

Look up a verse in the Bible that reads:

"Adam had two wives before Eve. Some we don`t remember the name of and a snake woman thing."

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Setzer

Ambika is right, people were shorter years ago. Look at people from medievil times. If you look at alot of knight armor they only stood at something like 5' 6". people weren't tall, it's only when people started to finally become culturally diverse by breeding with other people than just their own. Like how an Irish catholic woman would marry an Irish Catholic man.

We're not talking about a thousand years ago, we're talking about six thousand years ago. Yes, more recent history shows humans to be shorter, but closer to our creation, with the seventh layer of the atmosphere intact and earth's conditions like those of a Hyperbarric Chamber, people would grow to over eight feet tall.

The thought of being spawned of more than nothing than an atom is weird but I'll say it has me better than the whole Adam and Ever story.

So you have an easier time believing that billions of years ago, some atoms just "happened" to combine in such a perfect way, and then somehow became animated, and eventually "evolved" into humans, than you do believing that God created a man and a woman and had them breed?

It's just that science tries to be logical.

Yes and no. Science tries to be logical, but most "science" can't rely on any unknowns -- like, for example, a "higher power". So "science" finds the "most logical" explanation that doesn't include a stated "higher power" (though some grand time and nature with more power than anything else).

I mean yeah there was the garden blah blah, but Adam was actually in the original context of the bible supposed to have 3 wives. 1 was his first one I can't remember her name, but she's supposed to be the snake woman. well she didn't like him because she was sexually frustrated with him, no joke, she left him for that reason. Then the second wife was a fake wife he made of mud. I'm not joking, I know this because I know someone who learned all this from college, he studied religion and philosophy so this is true, this was in the original context of the bible, obviously it's been taken out since.

This is simply not true. Not just inaccurate, but intentionally false. Lilith never existed. Nowhere in any Biblical scripture will you find anything mentioning Lilith. Adam was the first man God created, and Eve the first woman. And your answer isn't "well it's been taken out", because it was never in the Bible. Some "scholars" believe the story of Lilith because it's based off other creation stories that are similar to Biblical Creation. The two have nothing to do with each other, Lilith and Biblical Creation.

[TomStrife]

Agreed. I think he found that in "World Weekly News" or "Sun" or something.
Those magazine are littered with Bull, except World Weekly News isn`t serious.

[Blacksmith]

I'll just say this...science figures out the how, not the why.

[TomStrife]

They found out how the world DIDN`T come into existence.

I can`t believe people are buying this BS that we came from monkeys.
It`s probably because Evolutionists ARE indeed evolved from monkeys.

Eiter way, how come monkeys aren`t turning into humans before our very eyes to this day?

Theory: REJECTED!

Originally Posted by TomStrife

They found out how the world DIDN`T come into existence.

I can`t believe people are buying this BS that we came from monkeys.
It`s probably because Evolutionists ARE indeed evolved from monkeys.

Eiter way, how come monkeys aren`t turning into humans before our very eyes to this day?

Theory: REJECTED!

\

Monkeys aren't evolving before our eyes because evolution takes millions of years. So each generation of them is getting smarter and bacoming more adept to living in their habbitat. And if you're saying that Evolutionists evolved from monkeys, then you are saying evoultion is in fact right, and in that, disproving the theory of God.

So...
Theory of God: REJECTED!!

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by _Vapor_

\

Monkeys aren't evolving before our eyes because evolution takes millions of years. So each generation of them is getting smarter and bacoming more adept to living in their habbitat. And if you're saying that Evolutionists evolved from monkeys, then you are saying evoultion is in fact right, and in that, disproving the theory of God.

So...
Theory of God: REJECTED!!

...actually, no, no, and no. The "evolutionists are evolved from monkeys" was a sarcastic comment, it you didn't notice it. Adaptation takes millions of years, but even with the bogus idea that the earth is billions of years old, it would take even longer for speciation to occur on that grand of a scale. And if monkeys (or apes, according to most interpretations) did evolve into humans, there wouldn't be any monkeys around anymore -- and if there were, they would be at every stage of speciation. If we really were evolved from anything. There would be no "missing links" (by the way, there are MULTIPLE "missing links", not just one), because every "link" would still be in existence. Unless a gorilla can give birth to a human baby, and BAM the entire species changes over in a generation or two.

Besides, it's common thought in the field of Evolutionism (where "thought" isn't common at all) that we didn't evolve from apes, so much as we both evolved from a "common ancestor". Either way, it's still a crock.

(And by the way. Even if Evolutionism were true -- and were proven true -- it wouldn't prove the presence or absence of a god.)

[Blacksmith]

I'd also like to mention one thing about evolution. There is two types of it and one actually makes more sense than the other.

Macro-evolution - Basically evolution itself as one species turns into another.

And then there is...

Micro-evolution - Small changes within ONE species. For example, a group of skinny white males and females enter a large mountainous area and decide to live there. Due to their fragile bodies it is difficult to get through the mountain, so within twenty years their bodies and their childrens bodies adapt to the surroundings and grow larger muscles, bone structures, etc etc. So basically they just "adapt to their enviroment". In fact this happens a lot. Years ago they found a pink dolphin in the amazon, (not bullshitting you).

Evolution, to me, is an excuse to get out of god's laws. It is also an excuse to put yourself higher than others, AKA racism. In fact did you know Hitler's REASON for killing the jews was because he thought they were of low species? The prove of that sits in a library of a paper he had that had all the races and their order in which they come to superiority. Well it was part of the reason he killed them, but it's a big factor in this debate. Many scientist try bringing this "proof" with only a "possible calculation" and never 100% sure.

Originally Posted by _Vapor_

Lets take Noahs arch for example, there is not enough water on this planet to flood the entire thing. And even if there was there would be so much water vapor in the air that you would drown from breathing. Another point is that how did Noah gather two of every animal in the enire world, and how did he fit them all on a raft. And again how did he feed them and keep the carnivores from preying on deer and such. He would have had to feed them every few days, and what did he feed them, he must have tracked down 100's of pounds of meat. And moreover how did he keep the meat fresh for 40 days.

Sorry, but you opened this one up, and this is a topic I can very rarely let go by.

As far as the amount of water, I believe that is a matter of faith that God brought that much water forth and sustained them in the atmoshpere. The Bible says "the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened" Gen 7:11 (Not only did it fall but it came from under ground.) Nowhere does God command Noah to go and find all the animals, just to bring them with him. It's possible God sent them all to Noah. And yes, full grown animals are big and eat quite a bit. But the little ones... are little. They don't eat as much and they sleep a lot more. He didn't have to fit them on a raft, the ark's measurements were recorded and placed in scripture: "the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits." Gen 6:15. A cubit is the length from your elbow to your middle fingertip. As humans would have (theoretically, as stated earlier) grown larger in those times, Noah's cubit would have been larger even than most people's are today. During the great depression, zoo's couldn't afford meat to feed to their carnivores. they'd give them vegetables (usually turnips and other inexpensive veggies) instead and the animals survived fine and were even healthy. No meat necessary, no worry about keeping it fresh for so long.

[Maridia]

Originally Posted by TomStrife

Agreed. I think he found that in "World Weekly News" or "Sun" or something.
Those magazine are littered with Bull, except World Weekly News isn`t serious.

Ehh no, I didn't my friend is in college he's learning about religion. He isn't going to be a priest or anything but the class disects religions, all types. And there are passages in the bible that have been taken out over the years. They've been taken out because certain thing said then may not be now so normal sounding. What I said was by no means bull. I know what I said sounds far fetched but so does the bible. So if what I heard was correct you're willing to buy that a woman was formed from Adams rib. You don't have a problem buying that, but the idea that maybe other crazy sounding things in the bible that were taken out, like Adam having two wives before hand does.

Plus there's an actual book that does exist that has stories that were written but never put into the bible, actually many were, but taken out over time due to how it just sounded so awkward in the bible. It's called the Apocrypha, there are stories that used to be in the bible long ago, but due to the change of people and what would be considered believable they were taken out. Some stories were written and just never put in, but others were taken out over time. I haven't read it, but I've been told alot about it. I believe that the "whole" story of Adam and Eve may be in there.

[hellbred]

in theory, not all specimens would have attended the ark as they are today. most if not all sea-based creatures would have survived as the normally would without need of an ark, and over time, there were more than likely a lot less species, or 'types' of species, that exist today. since many animals overtime have bred differently. insects could have lived by floating on most vegitation in water.

according to john woodmorappe (noah’s ark: a feasibility study), the total number of animals noah would have carried aboard the ark to meet the biblical requirements would have been between 2,000 and 16,000. not hundreds of thousands like most people think.