Evolution or Creation?

for you guys thinking there was no creation...
i want you guys to take a single piece of your skin and leave it in a container and expose it to many different climates.

keep it for one year, and see what happens to it.
i know, of course, you'll say we took millions of years to form into what we are now, but without an ideal breeding habitat and nutrition, cells will never regenerate, thus, Degenerating or in other common words, rotting, decomposing, etc.

at one point, earth was a marshy grassland
at another, earth was a flaming piece of rock.
at another, it was a frozen wasteland.
now, its a habitat for us humans. we create the environment. we have the power to do about anything now.

of course, the idea of us being created from dust and a breath from god is as well hard to believe, for the non-christians.

if someone neutral were to look at this subject, the idea of both are very far fetched.
darwins theory states we came from monkeys.
we see monekys today, they act very similar to us. or is iWE act similar to THEM?

anyways, if we came from monkeys, where did the monkeys come from?

if evolution really did exist, wouldnt you think since everything was a single cell, we should all be alike? there should be no birds or animals, but only of one thing, since evolution states we came from two single cell structures that became an organism and reproduced to create the many millions of people today.


Question:
in beginning, if a chicken came from an egg, where did the egg come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by babowc

for you guys thinking there was no creation...
i want you guys to take a single piece of your skin and leave it in a container and expose it to many different climates.

keep it for one year, and see what happens to it.
i know, of course, you'll say we took millions of years to form into what we are now, but without an ideal breeding habitat and nutrition, cells will never regenerate, thus, Degenerating or in other common words, rotting, decomposing, etc.

at one point, earth was a marshy grassland
at another, earth was a flaming piece of rock.
at another, it was a frozen wasteland.
now, its a habitat for us humans. we create the environment. we have the power to do about anything now.

of course, the idea of us being created from dust and a breath from god is as well hard to believe, for the non-christians.

if someone neutral were to look at this subject, the idea of both are very far fetched.
darwins theory states we came from monkeys.
we see monekys today, they act very similar to us. or is iWE act similar to THEM?

anyways, if we came from monkeys, where did the monkeys come from?

if evolution really did exist, wouldnt you think since everything was a single cell, we should all be alike? there should be no birds or animals, but only of one thing, since evolution states we came from two single cell structures that became an organism and reproduced to create the many millions of people today.


Question:
in beginning, if a chicken came from an egg, where did the egg come from?

---

actually monkey/human DNA is very similiar, that is probably why monkeys are the only animals to learn advanced communication with humans. evolution does take 1000-1,000,000's of years. your not going to find answers to the universe overnight nor are you going to find it in a single text written by man. and to your question we are all alike we all develop from single cell to complex cell organisms, and through the process of adaptation we evolve into what is needed of us.

that is why i posted the life cycle of a the frog, which begins basically fish like, eventually looses a tail and grows limbs/lungs to live above water. that is not creation. as stated previously if it was we would all be asexual and pregnated virgins would be every where. :jerkit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

that is not creation. as stated previously if it was we would all be asexual and pregnated virgins would be every where. :jerkit:

---

Sorry, that premise just doenst hold any water.
Your notion that Creation = asexuality & impregnated virgins is absurd, it doesnt even begin to add up any more then 1+1+1=71
I think I understand your dilema though...you don't seem to understand created beings that have been endowed with the power, ability & needed cells to reproduce.
Perhaps the fact that some created species are asexual or can switch "sides" is confusing to you. Perhaps the many complex and varying methods of that reproduction is confusing to you. Perhaps youre under some false impression that creation consists of constant "explosions" of creative power in the initial life origins context (God spoke and it was) being replicated literally over and over....thats not the case. Creation is the life giving force that BEGAN life. Creative power, or that God, also sustains life. Without that "spark" we have no life.

You make many good points in this forum but on this one your "math" doesnt even begin to work, even a little. Thats why no one can answer your question. Its kinda like asking how we can get 4 by mutilpying 6X2.
The fact is you cant. Your formula is wrong.
Hey but nothing wrong in posing the question....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

Sorry, that premise just doenst hold any water.
Your notion that Creation = asexuality & impregnated virgins is absurd, it doesnt even begin to add up any more then 1+1+1=71
I think I understand your dilema though...you don't seem to understand created beings that have been endowed with the power, ability & needed cells to reproduce.
Perhaps the fact that some created species are asexual or can switch "sides" is confusing to you. Perhaps the many complex and varying methods of that reproduction is confusing to you. Perhaps youre under some false impression that creation consists of constant "explosions" of creative power in the initial life origins context (God spoke and it was) being replicated literally over and over....thats not the case. Creation is the life giving force that BEGAN life. Creative power, or that God, also sustains life. Without that "spark" we have no life.

You make many good points in this forum but on this one your "math" doesnt even begin to work, even a little. Thats why no one can answer your question. Its kinda like asking how we can get 4 by mutilpying 6X2.
The fact is you cant. Your formula is wrong.
Hey but nothing wrong in posing the question....

---

oh i'm not confused i think you may be... if the life cycle is nothing more than creation then we would not have reporductive organs and we would be asexual. we also we not go through a growth process.

how is it far fetched to think even your GOD could of created evolution to sustain life on this planet? you already believing in an idea you can't grasp. Creation is not the what sustains life it is what began life. Evolution sustains life. You already said it was ADAPTAION and that is evolution, so your talking out of two sides of your mouth now.

"impregnated virgins is absurd" :lmfao: i'm not the one who believes in jesus i guess you forgot how he got here.... right.

Well Paul, I'm obviously on Metalman's side on this discussion.

You do sound like you are expecting a literal "bang" everytime something is created in order for Creationism to be valid.

As I said, you have to always start out from the beginning and work your way up from there. You can't say that humans or animals "evolve" and therefore the Evolution theory must be the right one, because you're not taking into consideration that BEFORE humans or animals can do ANYTHING they have to FIRST be something. That's why I kept asking about the FIRST frog and it's origin. Just like the first of anything, it sets the benchmark from which we of course "evolve", "adapt", "change", or whatever into what you see today. That doesn't change the fact there had to be a BEGINNING.

So what you are saying is that since the frog develops from a tadpole to a common frog that shows that Creationism must be the right answer because it shows how an that particular animal's life cycle goes????? Using that same theory, what about humans? You weren't born with a tail (I think.... :lmfao: ). So how did you "evolve" then?

Do you realize that human life begins not merely by ejaculate, but the exact mix of conditions? Many many people try to have children and can't, even after tests show there is nothing physically wrong with either partner. What does your evolution theory say about that? Does every tadpole turn out to be a frog? In other words, there are signs that point towards a much higher power always at work rather than plain ole Science. Like I said before, you can microdisect and reverse engineer anything and everything. It still doesn't make the microdisector nor the engineer THE creator of anything, just a theorist. ;)

Only the creator of anything can ever truly tell anyone definetively HOW or WHY something was made. Everyone else that comes afterwards is only a speculator. ;)

Quote:

---

So what you are saying is that since the frog develops from a tadpole to a common frog that shows that Creationism must be the right answer because it shows how an that particular animal's life cycle goes????? Using that same theory, what about humans? You weren't born with a tail (I think.... ). So how did you "evolve" then?

---

you are still complicating the original question? for the last time we are not discussing the exsistence of the frog but the process of which it survives. that is called the life cycle. where other then the very 1st frog ever made is there creation in the cycle of the frog? there isn't it is evolution that sustains the life of the frog. as for the tail question yes you and i both had tails at one point in time... Sperm? unless you were some crazy 2 headed sperm that swam up your mothers vaginal canal w/o a tail.... who knows i've seen crazy things.

Quote:

---

Do you realize that human life begins not merely by ejaculate, but the exact mix of conditions? Many many people try to have children and can't, even after tests show there is nothing physically wrong with either partner. What does your evolution theory say about that? Does every tadpole turn out to be a frog? In other words, there are signs that point towards a much higher power always at work rather than plain ole Science. Like I said before, you can microdisect and reverse engineer anything and everything. It still doesn't make the microdisector nor the engineer THE creator of anything, just a theorist.

---

along w/ evolution/adaptation is natural selection/survival ... of course not all tadpoles become frogs just as a not all fetus turn into infants or todlers... what is too hard for you to grasp... that your maker doesn't have a hand in your development or that your maker created a science to which you are made?

FINAL QUESTION SINCE YOU GUYS WANT TO DISECT EVERYTHING EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE POSED W/ A SIMPLE QUESTION.... IF LIFE IS SUSTAINED BY CREATION WHY CAN'T A MAN W/O A PENIS IMPREGNATE A WOMAN OR A VIRGIN WOMAN BE IMPREGNATED? IT IS IN THE BIBLE WHY CAN IT WORK IN REAL LIFE?

You were given a straight simple answer...which made alot more sense then the original question I might add. You dont WISH to accept that answer...thats cool....but it has been given nonetheless...by several people in several ways. Its right there...in front of you. ;)

As to your last question....you are seriously confusing two issues...the miraculous conception and birth of God...which can be called how God became a man. AND how man originates, replicates, reproduces etc.

In BOTH Gods Creative hand is at work. The first contains a mystery that no one can truly explain in absolute detail. BUT it DID happen, thats all that REALLY matters. ;)
No one said Christ/God doesnt require a measure of faith....He does. And those without ANY won't make it. More important then HOW is WHY. The answer to that in brief can be summarized by saying that God bridged the gap between us (God and sinful man) to save anyone that wished to be saved FROM sin and its ONLY ultimate end...suffering & DEATH.

The second...God designed/FORMED man, all of man, his entire body and all the organs from the dust of the earth, he designed it to have NUMEROUS systems, INCLUDING the reproductive system...which includes a penis, vagina, ovarys, testes etc etc etc etc etc THAT system, ORIGINATED and DESIGNED by God is given its very LIFE, which is continued throughout all generations. We pro-create everytime we make a child. We in a very small way participate in creation.

The answers and "proof" is all around us. The very fact the earth is not closer or farther from the sun, the fact that it rotates in a certain order and speed are ALL of God's design and set up to MAINTAIN LIFE. If any of those systems are even slightly alterd, we all DIE!! Everything dies. Its not hard to me to see th hand of God Creative power in all of it. Of course the evolutionist asks me to believe all of those astounding miraculous systems came about by ACCIDENT, just by CHANCE. Yeahhhh riiiight!!
The Creative power is what makes God GOD. No one, nothing else has it...in the same respect or even close.

Now you can certianly keep asking the question...but the answer has been given. :)

^ what you just gave is a BS answer that still has nothing to do with the original question at hand. you should of just posted ITS IN THE BIBLE SO ITS TRUE, it would of saved you tons of typing. i'm done discussing this topic w/ you.

it is funny you are now reverting your comments about adaptation to creation "We in a very small way participate in creation." :jerkit:

Like I said...the answer WAS given. You dont like that answer OR you don't understand it so you say it wasnt. I understand that.

The proof is all around you. Its even IN you. The fact you choose not to see it is fine with me. I am not into force. The entire Bible from Genisis to Revelation is about CHOICE. Choose God, or choose man, choose life, or choose death, choose to love or choose to hate, etc etc etc....I show and give evidence, you say its BS which is typical in most discussions with non believers. They dont offer proof of the alleged "BS", they just keep telling themselves and saying it is. Thats called clinging to a hope. I've addressed what that hope is man is clinging to already. ;)

I indicated quite early on that man particpates in creation. I have also stated rather clearly that adaptation/evolution is PART of Creation. Sorry you missed it.

I will also say this...its hard for someone, actually anyone, to understand what they havent experienced to some degree. Example...I know my father better then you do simply because I spent alot of time with him and I don't think youve ever met him. Same thing is true about God and the things of God. Those who spend time IN and WITH that come to a clarity of understanding not shared by those who don't. You yourself have stated that I show at least some insights into Bible/theology. Actually I think you put it stronger then that. Regardless..my point is this...the reason that is so is simply because I have spent time and effort studying Bible/theology and with the things of that type. Thats how a greater clarity of understanding comes about. And I am not talking about church attendance here. The day a person can attend church and become a christian is the same day I can enter a barn and become a cow. It takes a bit of personal experience. It ALSO takes an open mind, one that is willing to accept the evidence NO MATTER where it leads. Thats also why it does not anger me if others do not see what is so very plain to me. We are all at different points on that road to understanding. And some also have chosen the other road, which leads nowhere near understanding, which is THEIR choice to make.

In discussing the origins of mankind/life the real underlying central issue IS and HAS ALWAYS been the purpose and meaning of our existence. If one is completely honest one will have to admit that IF our ultimate end regardless of how we began was the same end, the origin would matter not one little bit. We could have been born from monkeys or created by a guy named Bob or hatched from a piece of crow dung and NONE of that would matter because the end result is the same. Not one of us would care about which origin was correct. I dare say this entire thread wouldn’t even exist.

With creation and evolution as origin possibilities the “ultimate end” and purpose for our life is drastically different with each. One (evolution) offers nothing but extinction, eternal oblivion and no subsequent life, reward, punishment, or anything at all. There is no reward. There is no punishment. There is no in between. No real purpose for life outside of self. Just nothing.

The other (creation) offers the possibility for each person to have what he chooses, it entails responsibilty, acountability...it also includes a reward, eternal life and all the subsequent wonders that entails, OR condemnation, punishment & eternal death.

Therein lies the problem for man. We all want a good outcome without price. We’d prefer a reward without sacrifice. But creation doesn’t offer that. So since it doesn’t mankind (for the most part) rejects it in favor of a Godless existence, that leads from nothing TO nothing, with no penalty OR reward, no accountability, just SELF. That in a nutshell is what evolution vs. creation is ALWAYS about.

It’s NOT the origin that REALLY matters. It’s where the acceptance of that origin ultimately leads, that’s the real issue and always has been.

i also saw somewhere where someone was impregnated w.o having any kind of sexual intercourse, nor medical implantation.
i forget where i saw it though..

however, you saying frogs turn from fish-like things means we turn into walking human from a fetus, an organism blob.
however, the organism blob that we were needed a place to grow.
frogs, w.o a habitat, will not live.

so, like many people asked..
if it was indeed evolution, where did the first frog come from?
dont say a single cell, again. since if you were to say that, as you said we all came from single cells, that means we're long distant family with the frogs?

The most basic scientific law is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

Where did all of the matter come from that created the universe? In other words, the "Big Bang" could have only converted some matter or energy into the current state. Where did it come from? Did it just spontaneously appear (create itself?)? If so, does that mean that the most basic scientific law is wrong, and as such, we should throw out every scientific conclusion that has any basis upon that law?

Just food for thought.

Here is something else to consider. If evolution is real, where are the in-between states? We do not see any evidence of a species converting to a new species. In other words, we do not have a starting species, an ending species, and mutations to connect the two. Basic observation skills of a 2nd grader can see this even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Here is something else to consider. If evolution is real, where are the in-between states? We do not see any evidence of a species converting to a new species. In other words, we do not have a starting species, an ending species, and mutations to connect the two. Basic observation skills of a 2nd grader can see this even.

---

Another aspect of this is genetics. Geneticly speaking, it is not possible for the genetic makeup of living creatures to change.
A genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. DNA itself has built in protective systems. It is self correcting. Evolutionists disregard these facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

The most basic scientific law is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

---

In a closed system. I would hardly call our universe closed. Many modern Quantum Physicists no longer believe that Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy hold true. Physicists at NASA and MIT have created new forms of matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

Another aspect of this is genetics. Geneticly speaking, it is not possible for the genetic makeup of living creatures to change.
A genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. DNA itself has built in protective systems. It is self correcting. Evolutionists disregard these facts.

---

Huh? Genetic mutation, no matter how small, is proof of evolution. Most are benign and don't affect the production of a new lifeform. DNA repair is limited in what it can do. Just b/c you don't see a dog evolve into an elephant doesn't mean evolution is not occurring. Countless birth defects are linked to genetic mutation, but most don't die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

Huh? Genetic mutation, no matter how small, is proof of evolution. Most are benign and don't affect the production of a new lifeform. DNA repair is limited in what it can do. Just b/c you don't see a dog evolve into an elephant doesn't mean evolution is not occurring. Countless birth defects are linked to genetic mutation, but most don't die.

---

The problem with your assertion is that NOT ONE animal has EVER become another, nor will it. The mutations you speak of are ALL within the realm of the SAME specie, which is understandable given the facts regarding genetics.
Changes within the specie, yes.
Changing to a different specie, NO.
Again, this is a theory evolutionists cling to in spite of the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

Physicists at NASA and MIT have created new forms of matter.

---

Show proof. No human has ever CREATED matter. That is a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Show proof. No human has ever CREATED matter. That is a fact.

---

SOURCE

MIT physicists create new form of matter
Lori Valigra, Special to MIT News Office
June 22, 2005


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- MIT scientists have brought a supercool end to a heated race among physicists: They have become the first to create a new type of matter, a gas of atoms that shows high-temperature superfluidity.

Their work, to be reported in the June 23 issue of Nature, is closely related to the superconductivity of electrons in metals. Observations of superfluids may help solve lingering questions about high-temperature superconductivity, which has widespread applications for magnets, sensors and energy-efficient transport of electricity, said Wolfgang Ketterle, a Nobel laureate who heads the MIT group and who is the John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics as well as a principal investigator in MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics.

Seeing the superfluid gas so clearly is such a dramatic step that Dan Kleppner, director of the MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, said, "This is not a smoking gun for superfluidity. This is a cannon."

For several years, research groups around the world have been studying cold gases of so-called fermionic atoms with the ultimate goal of finding new forms of superfluidity. A superfluid gas can flow without resistance. It can be clearly distinguished from a normal gas when it is rotated. A normal gas rotates like an ordinary object, but a superfluid can only rotate when it forms vortices similar to mini-tornadoes. This gives a rotating superfluid the appearance of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the cores of the mini-tornadoes. "When we saw the first picture of the vortices appear on the computer screen, it was simply breathtaking," said graduate student Martin Zwierlein in recalling the evening of April 13, when the team first saw the superfluid gas. For almost a year, the team had been working on making magnetic fields and laser beams very round so the gas could be set in rotation. "It was like sanding the bumps off of a wheel to make it perfectly round," Zwierlein explained.

"In superfluids, as well as in superconductors, particles move in lockstep. They form one big quantum-mechanical wave," explained Ketterle. Such a movement allows superconductors to carry electrical currents without resistance.

The MIT team was able to view these superfluid vortices at extremely cold temperatures, when the fermionic gas was cooled to about 50 billionths of one kelvin, very close to absolute zero (-273 degrees C or -459 degrees F). "It may sound strange to call superfluidity at 50 nanokelvin high-temperature superfluidity, but what matters is the temperature normalized by the density of the particles," Ketterle said. "We have now achieved by far the highest temperature ever." Scaled up to the density of electrons in a metal, the superfluid transition temperature in atomic gases would be higher than room temperature.

Ketterle's team members were MIT graduate students Zwierlein, Andre Schirotzek, and Christian Schunck, all of whom are members of the Center for Ultracold Atoms, as well as former graduate student Jamil Abo-Shaeer.

The team observed fermionic superfluidity in the lithium-6 isotope comprising three protons, three neutrons and three electrons. Since the total number of constituents is odd, lithium-6 is a fermion. Using laser and evaporative cooling techniques, they cooled the gas close to absolute zero. They then trapped the gas in the focus of an infrared laser beam; the electric and magnetic fields of the infrared light held the atoms in place. The last step was to spin a green laser beam around the gas to set it into rotation. A shadow picture of the cloud showed its superfluid behavior: The cloud was pierced by a regular array of vortices, each about the same size.

The work is based on the MIT group's earlier creation of Bose-Einstein condensates, a form of matter in which particles condense and act as one big wave. Albert Einstein predicted this phenomenon in 1925. Scientists later realized that Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity are intimately related.

Bose-Einstein condensation of pairs of fermions that were bound together loosely as molecules was observed in November 2003 by independent teams at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Innsbruck in Austria and at MIT. However, observing Bose-Einstein condensation is not the same as observing superfluidity. Further studies were done by these groups and at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, Duke University and Rice University, but evidence for superfluidity was ambiguous or indirect.

The superfluid Fermi gas created at MIT can also serve as an easily controllable model system to study properties of much denser forms of fermionic matter such as solid superconductors, neutron stars or the quark-gluon plasma that existed in the early universe.

The MIT research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, NASA and the Army Research Office.


Did you really think a law formulated in the late 1700's wouldn't be put to the test year after year? BTW, you may want to research the true defintion of "matter" among scientists and Christian zealots.

Edit: Another bit of info:

Why is matter not being created at the present time, nor being destroyed?

Matter is being created and destroyed now. For example, a high energy X-ray can collide with the nucleus of an atom and disappear and two particles, an electron and an anti-electron (a.k.a. positron), will appear in its place. So extra matter is being produced from no matter. The important thing is that the amount of total energy stays the same, but the energy can change its form from electromagnetic radiation (the X-ray) to matter (the electron and positron). Also, an electron and positron can collide with and annihilate each other, producing X-rays.


Why is every Christian postulate fact ? LoL.

You are obviously posting something you do not understand fully. Read up on it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. It is actually an in-between state that they observed. The law of conservation still is applied here.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._newmatter.htm
Law of Conservation of Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
The actual notes of the lecture (plus audio file)
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/ketterle/

But I will day, very good report anyway.

BTW - I am not trying to convert you to Christianity, or any other religion. Believe what you wish. But, personally, I do believe that evolution is modern day mythology. It has to be accepted on faith - just like religion.
1000 years ago scientist KNEW that the world was flat....

creation.

cause GOd said so..................

Damn. I had two paragraphs typed and the site went down. LoL. Well, I won’t retype everything, but I will say that you need to learn the definition of matter before you claim matter has never been created. That definition does not change to suit your Christian needs. Most people assume there are only 3 types of matter: solids, liquids, and gases. In fact, there are at least six: solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates, and the new form of matter called fermionic condensates (there is a small debate about the total lol). You posted those links after a quick Google search. Do you even know what they are saying? If you were of an analytical mind and have science background you wouldn’t make blanket statements. But, I do understand that is the Creationism SOP. The sites you linked don’t refute anything. You want to discuss science? I have no problem with that.

Quote:

---

But, personally, I do believe that evolution is modern day mythology.

---

Creationism is bad science and bad theology.

Quote:

---

1000 years ago scientist KNEW that the world was flat....

---

Hey, gravity is just a theory, but who cares about that? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You are obviously posting something you do not understand fully. Read up on it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

---

I read about it when it happened. I didn't have someone point it out and then try to refute it w/o knowledge of said material. ;)



EDIT: If science can't be relied upon by Creationists, why are they using the SCIENTIFIC Laws of Thermodynamics to refute evolution? :screwy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hektik

creation.

cause GOd said so..................

---

Wow, good point! I'm convinced. :lmfao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

The sites you linked don’t refute anything.
I read about it when it happened. I didn't have someone point it out and then try to refute it w/o knowledge of said material. ;)

---

You read what a reporter - not a scientist put out. I gave you the links to the NASA report (with the quotations), and images of his notes. His own words - "That means ... we have the remarkable effect that an atom (in one BEC) plus an atom (in another BEC) gives no atom. It's destructive interference," says Ketterle. "Of course we didn't destroy matter, it just appeared somewhere else in the pattern, so the total number of atoms is conserved."
Like I said, you can believe anything you want, but I would suggest you go to the source of the statements, rather than posting what a reporter interpreted from it. Make your own decsisions though, no one else (including me), can or should be a big factor in your decision-making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hektik

creation.

cause GOd said so..................

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

You read what a reporter - not a scientist put out. I gave you the links to the NASA report (with the quotations), and images of his notes. His own words - "That means ... we have the remarkable effect that an atom (in one BEC) plus an atom (in another BEC) gives no atom. It's destructive interference," says Ketterle. "Of course we didn't destroy matter, it just appeared somewhere else in the pattern, so the total number of atoms is conserved."
Like I said, you can believe anything you want, but I would suggest you go to the source of the statements, rather than posting what a reporter interpreted from it. Make your own decsisions though, no one else (including me), can or should be a big factor in your decision-making.

---

LoL. Again, understand the types of matter and how they behave, including the condensates. Do you comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum mechanics? There is some limited debate whether FC should be labeled a new form of matter, but most modern physicists label it as such. You actually linked a credible site like wikipedia? LoL. You're reading bits and pieces of want you desire to see. I will assume you're a AiG follower. My beliefs are based on fact and decades of research, which includes quantitative data. I suspect Creationist can't claim the same. There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. I've had this discussion many times over and will continue to do so in the future. Creationism is faith in the irrational. But hey, you did say we have the mental capacity of second graders. :lmfao:

BTW, Ketterle's research centered around the BEC and not the FC. He decided to jump on the bandwagon after Deborah Jin.

Here are the FACTS


For the people that believe in god. Also belive in ghosts and Santa Clause. They believe in ghost since I’m not seeing shit, oh wait there’s god! Oh wait, that’s a cumulus cloud. Then Santa Clause, since you cant make fun of a 10 year old because he still BELIEVES in Santa or else you would be a hypocrite. Do you believe in Santa? It would be much easier to convince me that there is a Santa delivering presents on a flying sled, rather then a fat ass ghost in orbit creating things that I have never see created.

Religion was created to give peasants hope, in order to keep them in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

LoL. Again, understand the types of matter and how they behave, including the condensates. Do you comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum mechanics? There is some limited debate whether FC should be labeled a new form of matter, but most modern physicists label it as such. You actually linked a credible site like wikipedia? LoL. You're reading bits and pieces of want you desire to see. I will assume you're a AiG follower. My beliefs are based on fact and decades of research, which includes quantitative data. I suspect Creationist can't claim the same. There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. I've had this discussion many times over and will continue to do so in the future. Creationism is faith in the irrational. But hey, you did say we have the mental capacity of second graders. :lmfao:

BTW, Ketterle's research centered around the BEC and not the FC. He decided to jump on the bandwagon after Deborah Jin.

---

Let me explain it in simple English. The scientist that developed it does not say it is a new form of matter. What is so difficult to understand? If you don't believe him, why don't you go tell him, that he is an idiot and doesn't understand his own work?

The link to Wiki was just for you to review the Law of Conservation of Mass. Don't take it to heart as an attack on you or anything.

I an not an AiG follower. You assume incorrectly.

Your beliefs are founded on an unsubstantialed hypothesis that was created for those that are mathmatically challenged. BUT, they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, the same as anyone else (including religion-based conceptualists).

All I'm saying is that you can live in the deliusion that evolution is based on facts, or you can accept that you believe in evolution based upon faith. There are plenty of observed facts and laws that disprove evolution, but again, anyone can believe anything they wish.

BTW - For your information, I do believe that evolution is probably the greatest science fiction concept ever created. It is fantastic that it has snowballed from a simple concept from Charles Darwin's grandfather into being taught as Gospel. Reminds me of Galileo's times.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnail

Religion was created to give peasants hope, in order to keep them in check.

---

I agree with you on this statement for the most part. Throughout history, most religions seem to have been pushed by the reigning government to maximize usefulness of their subjects.

One question though:

If we give "matter" all sorts of names as different "scientists" come up with their own individual theories, does that still CHANGE the actual Law of Conservation of Mass? In other words, couldn't I come up with some new nifty name for "matter" that I feel suddenly exists so then I can be able to prove a theory I'm trying to prove?

BTW, I agree with David. I said it earlier and noone has addressed it, just like one of his points here. Aethiests hold on to a stead fast belief which has been DISproven by science, yet bash Christians for holding an opposite belief (although they admit they DON'T need science to "prove" anything to them) which also equally has been disproven by science. Ironic how an Aethiest has FAITH on something like that, but then bashes Christians for having their own faith in something else.......Hello POT, my name is KETTLE..... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnail

For the people that believe in god. Also belive in ghosts and Santa Clause. They believe in ghost since I’m not seeing shit, oh wait there’s god! Oh wait, that’s a cumulus cloud. Then Santa Clause, since you cant make fun of a 10 year old because he still BELIEVES in Santa or else you would be a hypocrite. Do you believe in Santa?

---

When you try and join these discussion, please try and use substance you can back up rather than just conjecture. If you want to remain in the same stack with 10 yr olds, go for it. Most grown up folks figure out the truth about Santa just fine.

Quote:

---

It would be much easier to convince me that there is a Santa delivering presents on a flying sled, rather then a fat ass ghost in orbit creating things that I have never see created.

---

How many of those animals you get your rocks off by killing for no particular reason other than immaturity have you seen a MAN "create"???? :rolleyes:

You don't "see" because you walk around with your eyes closed and don't appreciate how those birds, rabbits, and squirrels you get your jollies from killing FIRST got here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. .

---

Well that pretty much sums it up.
Its clear you grasp at straws to find "science" to make you feel comfortable in your already decided beliefs. There are plenty of evolutionists using faulty science and defective methods (carbon dating etc etc) to fulfill that need.
Mankinds lab experiments are not suprising, he has been tampering with creation for thousands of years. Whatever.

The problem is that there is much ACTUAL scientific and fossil evidence that does not in anyway fit with the yet UNPROVEN THEORY of evolution, in fact it almost completely destroys it. We are still left with those FACTS.

From the SUDDEN appearance of complex lifeforms in the earths strata, to the nano second lasting halos "frozen" in those strata, to the calculation of decay rates of the earths magnetic field (which lead to earth being but a few thousand years old), to the imense complexity of the earths life systems and critial timing and DESIGN of each, to the discovery of dinasour and human evidence in the same strata, to the impossibilties of genetics in relation to a specie changing into another, to the FACT that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY specie ever became another completely different one...and on and on...etc etc.
Youre comfortable ignoring these facts for the belief you have already chosen. Thats fine, your not alone. Mankind in general prefers no God, no accountibility, no judgement. Enjoy your "faith".
We all have a choice.

LoL. You'll have to excuse my laughter. Seems like the AiG followers have had a meeting of the minds. I will ask this again, if science is so unreliable why are you using it to refute evolution? Use what you hold so near and dear to your hearts, some fictional text you call a bible. Do you really think Creationism is logical? One supreme being snapped his fingers and our world came about? Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves. For the sake of argument, how would you explain your environment without religion? Where would you start? Would you know where to start?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

Mankind in general prefers no God, no accountibility, no judgement. Enjoy your "faith".
We all have a choice.

---

I love when you "philosophize" Metalman. It brings a smile to my face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

to the FACT that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY specie ever became another completely different one.

---

That never came out of my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metalman

There are plenty of evolutionists using faulty science and defective methods (carbon dating etc etc) to fulfill that need.

---

So there's no division among Creationists? :lmfao: Creationists that lack the knowledge of any particular field of science shouldn't make assumptions. But that is the basis of Creationism.


I'm willing to bet that most of you visit your physician when you become ill. Also, I'm willing to bet that if he prescribes medication, you'll get it filled and use as directed. What part of this elementary scenario is religion based? How much of it is science based? Would you rather have decades of research by your side or a god? Which method do you think would bring about a speedy recovery? Next time you fall ill, pray to some god and forget about going to a doctor. There's too much science in medicine and pharmacology. Since Creationist have this aversion to science why bother living in a world where science is apparently abundant. Creationists love to use science when it benefits them in some way, but then loathe it when it doesn't conform to their religious propaganda. Pick a side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. .

---

Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims. You may be able to sway those that lack the motivation (or ability) to question the universe.


EDIT: Let's see how long we can go around in circles. :D

Edit #2: I'm not attacking one's core religious beliefs. I take issue with Creationisim's fallacious arguments used to wage war on science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

Do you really think Creationism is logical? One supreme being snapped his fingers and our world came about?

---

A whole lot more "logical" than "everything that is came about initially from a great big "bang" in the vastness of space and somehow or another THAT CREATED a single celled organism which defies the laws of physics and went on to CREATE/EVOLVE into everything from air to trees to dirt to humans...."

RIIIIIGGHGHGHGHTTTTT that makes a whole lot more LOGICAL sense than Creationism. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves.

---

What theory of relativity or Law of physics did YOU come up with???? :rolleyes: So you are regurgitating what you found in your google search that agreed with you. How'd that take any more effort than anything else?

Quote:

---

For the sake of argument, how would you explain your environment without religion? Where would you start? Would you know where to start?

---

Wouldn't need to since it is YOU that believes our environment evolved from some big bang a gazillion years ago. "WE" already have our own idea of where it came from.....It's called GENESIS....read it.

Quote:

---

So there's no division among Creationists? :lmfao: Creationists that lack the knowledge of any particular field of science shouldn't make assumptions. But that is the basis of Creationism.

---

The only time "science" is brought into this debate is by YOUR side always wanting "proof". The only "proof" you guys ever want is "Science". Problem is that the only one you will give any merit to is the one that agrees with YOUR phylosophy. How convinient.

Quote:

---

I'm willing to bet that most of you visit your physician when you become ill. Also, I'm willing to bet that if he prescribes medication, you'll get it filled and use as directed. What part of this elementary scenario is religion based? How much of it is science based? Would you rather have decades of research by your side or a god? Which method do you think would bring about a speedy recovery? Next time you fall ill, pray to some god and forget about going to a doctor. There's too much science in medicine and pharmacology. Since Creationist have this aversion to science why bother living in a world where science is apparently abundant. Creationists love to use science when it benefits them in some way, but then loathe it when it doesn't conform to their religious propaganda. Pick a side.

---

:blah: :blah: :blah:

I don't know of any so called "creationist" that refuses to go to the doctor when they are ill. Do you? Noone said that in order for Creationism to exist you have to refuse Science or any of it's factors. Where are you coming up with all this garbage? How come you pick and choose which scientific proof you believe and which you don't? How come you if you are so scientifically inclined do you not scientifically rebutt any of the examples Metalman has given in his previous post? He gave a handful of "scientific" examples that shoots holes the size of a Marta bus in your Evolution theory. Address those.

Instead you wanna twist every argument back to: Medicine is scientific. Medicine helps cure people. Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works..... :jerkit: :screwy:

Quote:

---

Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims. You may be able to sway those that lack the motivation (or ability) to question the universe.

---

Why don't you start by trying to make some of the examples given above dissapear with your all knowing science?

Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You will never see proof with your eyes closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Aethiests hold on to a stead fast belief which has been DISproven by science, yet bash Christians for holding an opposite belief (although they admit they DON'T need science to "prove" anything to them) which also equally has been disproven by science. Ironic how an Aethiest has FAITH on something like that, but then bashes Christians for having their own faith in something else.......Hello POT, my name is KETTLE..... :rolleyes:

---

way to fit the christian stereotype on that comment :eye:
funny how you generalize, i would like to you show me where i bash anyone for ANY beliefs not just christians, please. since you said Athiests bash christians.

funny how your saying others are "calling the kettle black" look in a mirror every once in a while, it will help :goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

What theory of relativity or Law of physics did YOU come up with???? :rolleyes: So you are regurgitating what you found in your google search that agreed with you. How'd that take any more effort than anything else?

---

So one needs to formulate his own theory, which takes funding and years of rigorous testing, to agree with the findings of another? Interesting concept. I'm sorry, which college did you do your research? That's the last personal attack I promise. ;) . The fact that the only source of data for Creationists is the bible, IS not logical. Science can at least attempt to reference other sources. We don't have just ONE source to draw from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Problem is that the only one you will give any merit to is the one that agrees with YOUR phylosophy. How convinient.

---

Hmm, sounds a lot like Creationism to me. Hard to believe but I am very open-mined. I am willing to consider any point as long as sufficient data exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

How come you if you are so scientifically inclined do you not scientifically rebutt any of the examples Metalman has given in his previous post? He gave a handful of "scientific" examples that shoots holes the size of a Marta bus in your Evolution theory. Address those.

---

Metalman's examples have been discussed many times over. Read any Creationist website. I assume you've read those before you posted? It's the same argument. They use "unreliable" science to refute "unreliable" science. Makes no sense to me. Hey, if he wants to discuss coelacanths, newts, abiogenesis, evolution, theory of gravity, and etc that's fine by me. It just becomes a tiresome debate. It takes time to post detailed explanations regardless of which side you are on. BTW, are we talking about ABIOGENESIS or EVOLUTION?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Instead you wanna twist every argument back to: Medicine is scientific. Medicine helps cure people. Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works.

---

Apparently you didn't read the previous posts. No surprise there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works .

---

Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Why don't you start by trying to make some of the examples given above dissapear with your all knowing science?

---

Creationists are questioning established science, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders. Do you really think, given the history of this debate, anything would just disappear? Would you understand why Creationists lobby to eliminate the teaching of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? No matter the evidence provided, Creationists will dismiss it b/c it does not conform to their agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You will never see proof with your eyes closed.

---

Why do YOU need proof if you have faith? Isn't faith in your heart and mind? Shouldn't matter whether your eyes are open or shut. ;)

Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist? :thinking:

Creationism doesn't go against science.

The one answer that not one evolutionist can answer is where did the original elements come from that came together to begin evolution? I'll pick this up tonight or tomorrow. Time to go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900

How many of those animals you get your rocks off by killing for no particular reason other than immaturity have you seen a MAN "create"???? :rolleyes:

You don't "see" because you walk around with your eyes closed and don't appreciate how those birds, rabbits, and squirrels you get your jollies from killing FIRST got here.

---

Yes, I do like to shoot animals. But in doing so, I am proving evolution. Battle of the fittest ! HAHAHAHA! Animals-0 TheSnail-470+

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

I will ask this again, if science is so unreliable why are you using it to refute evolution?

---

I never made such a statement.
I know that in all science, be it medical, or pertaining to origins of man, or other, there is sound science and unsound science. By judging the methods and formulas used one with reasonable intelligence can see which is which.

For example, as already discussed, the science of carbon dating is a 'flawed' one to say the very least. It doesnt work. A living creature can be carbon dated to be some 25-30000 years old when we KNOW it isnt. Yet evolutionary scientists continue to cling to the hope that its working and correct, even though it isnt. Why??? Because they dont have anything else to pin their faith on.
Theyre clinging to a hope in a theory! Even Darwin aknowledged strong evidence existed AGAINST his theory...which is more then I can say for its "religious believers" today.

Quote:

---

Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims.

---

Pretty much the same statement. Why don't you just admit that you dont care WHAT evidence is uncovered currently OR in the future because youve already decided it doesnt matter.
You have said just that two different times and ways.
That type of logic and/or scientific approach should certainly not convincing to any thinking person.

MUCH data already refutes the UNPROVEN THEORY or evolution as the orgin of man. Yet you are not interested NOR have you addressed ANY of 'data' of scientific facts already mentioned in this thread. And I doubt you will either. ;)
Thats quite typical of people in the evolutionary camp. The only facts that interest them or that they wish to focus on are the ones they THINK seem to give them more faith in their religion of evolution. That approach to ANY science is faulty to say the very least.

Again, NONE of this (origin of life) would matter EXCEPT for what implication it might have on our current life and future. Thats the real issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves.

---

Yeah...people like Thomas Jefferson. He never was never much into thinking or anything intellectual and simply abhored the notion of thinking for ones self. :lmfao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pharm_teg

Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist? :thinking:

---

Bingo. On this we do agree. :)

Now this is a question for pharm_teg, and only pharm_teg. It is not to provoke anything. I just want to hear your explanation on it.
Evolution relies on the Earth developing slowly over millions of years. It also clearly states that humans came over a million years after dinosaurs died out.
What about the Ica Stones? Obviously, ancient Peruvians saw and used dinosaurs that shoud have turned to buried fossils long before the first caveman. Evolutionists usually avoid this topic like the plague.
Here are a couple of pics of them, and the link to their main museum in Peru.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/icastonemuseum.htm