Origin of the Universe

[Blacksmith]

Originally Posted by hellbred

I don't think he expects people to follow him, he is just stating politely like I did that you all appear to be more on the end of throwing each other's opinion's at each other, rather than educating yourself/each other.

Bingo! You hit the hack pot and get a prize! I'll find out what it is tomorrow! Though anyway, like hellbred obviously understood one major fact here is everyone is just stating opinions and trying to outsmart each other. How about they all stop acting immature, attacking Sadquatches believes, and leave this debate to the real professionals. I mean it's the internet, even if you do prove your point that's all you do.

Originally Posted by Ryder

No one is asking you to continue griffith, if you think it's pointless to continue fine. Just don't expect everyone to follow along with you; I've got questions still that I'd like answer's to.

Of course not, if I would continue I'd be ranting on about how wrong you are because I got this awesome degree man! /pothead voice.

And really, if you have questions, depending on what the question is about you can go to a university of some science, (creationism or "biological evolution"), and ask them instead of wasting everyones time. True a stupid question is a questioned not asked, but since we all seem to be on opposite sides it will only add fuel to the fire. Anyway, how about following my example instead? I think it would put some water on this pointless blaze, (and yes it IS pointless, that's not a mere opinion, anyone with a IQ of 70-90 could tell), even Bush, so really stop choking the dead chicken and let it's headless body hit the ground peacefully.

Kthxbye

§ Artist of blood stained walls

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by OnOneRyder

So basically you're saying that a spaceship need's less thrust to get away from earth the further it gets which is correct, but the way you say it shows that you believe that the water creates no gravity. You add water to the mix, and gravity is increased and pressure is increased as well.

Actually, I didn't say anything about whether or not water creates gravity. But since you mentioned it, thank you, because you just brought up even more support for my point. Though it wouldn't be much, a layer of water or ice around the earth would have its own gravity -- which would actually decrease its pressure on the earth, as it would lessen the weight of the rest of the atmosphere by pulling it towards the "canopy" instead of only towards the earth. Just like how things weigh (nearly insignificantly) less when the moon is directly over that part of the earth -- that's why we have "tides", because the moon's gravity, though having much less effect on the water than earth's gravity, helps to "pull" the water away from the earth (or actually, helps to balance the gravitational pull toward's earth, so the water isn't under so much pressure in one direction).

You still haven't commented on how creationism feels towards plate tectonics. Most plates move at the same rate as our finger nails, we can track these plates quite accurately so do not try and debate that fact. Explain how it is South America has traveled away from Africa over the course of several thousand years. How the eastern North American coast is no longer fitting snuggly with Europe. These continents were once connected, how is it that they've traveled so far in only a few thousand years. There would have had to be extremely violent volcanic processes going on at plate boundaries for them to move that far in a few thousand years. Yet there is no evidence to support such violent times took place since the creation of our planet.

While I do believe that the continents were never a "Pangea" (or "Laurasia" and "Gondwanaland", I believe, which are what the original "Pangea" supposedly split into), I must admit that I don't know much of the Creation Science view on the hypothetical super-continent. And yes, we can track these plates -- not exactly "accurately", but we know they're moving -- but we don't know if the plates used to move, how fast or slowly they moved in the past, or when they started moving, or when they stopped moving, or which plates did or didn't move in the past. And since there's no proof -- or even decent credible evidence -- of "Pangea", it's not really a huge topic, like the simple biological evolution that Evolutionists try to twist into speciation. You're walking into the subject with the assumption that the continents were once all one continent, while I enter with a logical doubt of just that.

And Griffith -- not to be rude here or anything, but I realize that a debate most likely isn't going to change the opinions of an "opponent". However, I'm sure there are more people reading this than the couple that are involved, and I wouldn't doubt a bit that some people are reading this with doubts to their current belief, or possibly without ever having made their mind up on the subject. While very few people enter a debate thinking "prove me wrong, and I'll believe you", many on-lookers may just be trying to learn more so that they can make up their own minds. Or they might just be trying to learn more to use in support of, or to use against, a certain idea.

[relm]

Interesting topic of "pangea". I used to ask my mom about that
all the time. It was wierd how all the continents fit together
like how scientist show. I always thought there was a pangea,
but God moved the continents during the time of the Tower of
Babel. During this time, God separated the world to different races
and spread them far accross the globe from each other, because
of their sinful acts of trying to reach God through the tower.
This is just what we thought. We can find out when we get to
heaven ^_^

[OnOneRyder]

We can find out when we get to heaven ^_^

If there is a heaven to go to.

As for as pangea, there is HUGE amounts of visible evidence to support that it once existed. First off and most noticable is how well the current continents fit together. There is a lot of less visible evidence, but still very credable. There are fossils found in on one coast, and thousands of miles away fossils found on coasts which are believe to have been connected at one point; there are mineral deposits found in similar fashions. And how bout them fish species, even today we find fish in south america that are related directly to some found in African lakes and no where else on earth.

Do not try and say that we cannot accurately measure the distances travelled, that is yet another one of your made up theories. We do know that the plates travel at .7-5.4inches per year. Considering continents are several thousand miles wide, I'd say being able to track them within a few cm's counts as accurate.

During this time, God separated the world to different races
and spread them far accross the globe from each other, because
of their sinful acts of trying to reach God through the tower.

For the continents to move that quickly they'd have to move at incredible speeds which means either volcanic activity as violent as the times of our planets formation, or an act of a supernatural entity which would itself leave a lot of evidence. We'd have some very very extreme mountain ranges. There's a reason many creationists won't touch on the subject, they usually don't try and comment on anything that credible science has pretty much already explained.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by OnOneRyder

As for as pangea, there is HUGE amounts of visible evidence to support that it once existed. First off and most noticable is how well the current continents fit together. There is a lot of less visible evidence, but still very credable. There are fossils found in on one coast, and thousands of miles away fossils found on coasts which are believe to have been connected at one point; there are mineral deposits found in similar fashions. And how bout them fish species, even today we find fish in south america that are related directly to some found in African lakes and no where else on earth.

Please don't try to spout mere coincidence as "huge amounts of visible evidence". (By the way, for those of you who don't know, "huge amounts of visible evidence" means "yeah, it looks possible".) For Pangea to have been possible, every coastline of every continent would have to be a fault line, and that just doesn't work. There are similar fossils found all over the world -- similar fossils being found in different places doesn't mean they're from the same group, it means they're similar fossils and that's it. And don't try the old "the parts of fossils on opposite coasts are from the same creature" crap, because there's absolutely no evidence for that. As for mineral veins, again, they're found nearly randomly in all parts of the world -- there are too many veins near coastlines to count, that doesn't mean in any way that any of them were ever connected. If Russia has similar dirt to Wisconsin, what's that mean? Absolutely nothing. And similar fish species? South American fish are similar to African fish? Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean the continents were ever connected -- unless it meant that the bodies of water those fish inhabit were once connected, and I think even you'd see that's bogus.

Do not try and say that we cannot accurately measure the distances travelled, that is yet another one of your made up theories. We do know that the plates travel at .7-5.4inches per year. Considering continents are several thousand miles wide, I'd say being able to track them within a few cm's counts as accurate.

First of all, when the margin of error is over 70%, that's not accurate. I'm almost ashamed that I have to explain that to you, but I guess somebody has to. Second of all, not all plates move at that rate -- and even the ones that do, we don't know how long they've been moving at that rate, or moving at all. And by the way, no, we cannot measure the distances travelled, for just those reasons.

For the continents to move that quickly they'd have to move at incredible speeds which means either volcanic activity as violent as the times of our planets formation, or an act of a supernatural entity which would itself leave a lot of evidence.

The act of a supernatural entity? Wow, that would make perfect sense for a belief that God seperated the continents, wouldn't it? Who would have thunk it, huh?

And why do you think it would leave a lot of evidence? What sort of "evidence" would it leave, anyway?

We'd have some very very extreme mountain ranges. There's a reason many creationists won't touch on the subject, they usually don't try and comment on anything that credible science has pretty much already explained.

Actually, the reason most Creationists "won't touch on the subject" is that it doesn't measure up to the larger issues of the Big Bang and Evolutionism. There are bigger fish to fry, so to speak. While I've already admitted that I don't know much about it, I'm sure many people could come up with a better argument than I could.

[OnOneRyder]

For Pangea to have been possible, every coastline of every continent would have to be a fault line,

No they wouldn't have. I trust your knowledge on the bible and I'd hope you'd trust mine on geography. There's one big ass fault running down the middle of the Atlantic; new material spews out of that all the time pushing NA and SA away from Africa and Europe. If you rewind all that material you would see the continents fall together, there's a reasen you can cut a map out and fit a lot of pieces together so well.

There are similar fossils found all over the world -- similar fossils being found in different places doesn't mean they're from the same group, it means they're similar fossils and that's it.

Please direct me to where I said similar, I'm talking about the exact same plant and animal species. Glossopteris is a fern found in Africa and SA and nowhere else on earth, there's a species of dinosaur called Rugops primus which has been found in the Sahara and South America only. These plants and animals do not travel across the oceans by themselves.

And don't try the old "the parts of fossils on opposite coasts are from the same creature" crap, because there's absolutely no evidence for that.

www.google.com , go learns you some knowledge if you want to debate my theories otherwise leave them the hell alone.

First of all, when the margin of error is over 70%, that's not accurate.

Second of all, not all plates move at that rate -- and even the ones that do, we don't know how long they've been moving at that rate, or moving at all. And by the way, no, we cannot measure the distances travelled, for just those reasons.

I'd really love to see where you're getting this information from, because none of this is taught or accepted by any geography teacher that I've spoken with. Must be found in a Dr.Dino geo specific texbook only available to christians.

And why do you think it would leave a lot of evidence? What sort of "evidence" would it leave, anyway?

Huge mountain ranges, evidence of extreme volcanic periods. If you move continental plates around that quickly you're going to open fissures and push plates into each other. Even today a plate pushing into another one of the course of a few million years resulted in the himilayas, imagine how large mountains would be if the continents were shifted over only a few thousand.

Can you please make this your last post in which you discredit my facts which are believed by every credible geographer out there and reply with things you've pulled out of your ass. Or you can write your's down and sell it as your own, either is fine with me.

You seem to shut down any theories regarding Evolution or the Big bang like radiometric dating as not relaible, the speed of light used to measure distances of objects as being unsure of. You say continental drift is not provable even though it in fact is. Funny how all of these "unreliable" theories give us an age of our planet of 5.5 billion years and the universe at over 14billion. Maybe the fact that their all wrong yet all give similar outcomes is just bs and a fluke.

[hellbred]

Two points I wanted to make, or ask rather.

One, As I was at the book store today I was skimming through several books on Christianity and Religion, and one paragraph I happened to flip to was on the common origins of man and evolution. I found it interesting that a scientist had stated that some of the highly complex makeup of DNA and rDNA and various molecules within the human body at their core form are almost too complex to simply "become" or to have experienced evolution in their current form. Again, I didn't read the whole book just that page cause it peaked my interest, but I suppose it would be an interesting read.

Another thing I was thinking about today was the origin of the universe. I'm a devot Christian and I firmly believe God created Heaven and Earth and all things on/in it. However, in my readings of the Bible [granted I haven't read the whole scripture yet] I cannot find where it states God created the universe. I'm not disproving or acrediting the origin of the universe with the Lord, but simply wanting to know what others think of this from *BOTH* stand points. I find it off that God could create the Earth, but the Universe was already in existance, however from my readings thus far I haven't found proof otherwise.

[Sasquatch]

Actually, Genesis does mention creation of all the other stars.

Something intersting I found, too.

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) had this to say:

Originally Posted by Muchael Ruse

Evolution is promoted by its practicioners as moer than a mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Cristianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. Thie was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

[hellbred]

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Actually, Genesis does mention creation of all the other stars.

Ah, you are correct. Can't believe I had forgotten that part.

Genesis 1:14,15
"The God said, "Let there be bright lights in the sky to give light to the earth and to identify the day and the night; they shall bring about the seasons on the earth, and mark the days and years." And so it was. For God made two huge lights, the sun and moon, to shine down upon the earth--the larger one, the sun, to preside over the day and the smaller one, the moon, to preside through the night; he also made the stars.

[TomStrife]

This is relevant but it is quite honestly the corniest comic in existence.
Just be aware that the guy that made this badly represented Evolutionists as people who are stubborn idiots. However, this comic does have some good points so I`ll post it:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp