evolution unravled

The term was introduced by Fred Hoyle. Fred did not believe in the Big Bang, being a major formulator of the Steady State Universe theory. He coined the expression Big Bang to ridicule the alternative and at that time less popular theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prove it with one single snowflake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prove what? That snowflakes don't magically disappear?

1) Catch a big snowflake in your dry hand.
2) Close your hand for 5 seconds (the snowflake will heat up.
3) Observe the water.

I mean really?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no kidding. put a snowflake in a balloon and allow it to melt. its effects will last for a small amount of time and ultimately you are left with what?

NOTHING. As if it never existed.

 

You're left with liquid dude.

 

it depends on a few minor factors. you wanted nothing from something and i gave it to you. and now you cannot accept it.

 

Such as things don't magically disappear?

2 incorrect statements and 1 correct statement.

1) What I wanted is for you to point out an instance of "nothing"... that is a complete absence of everything / anything... no space, no time, no matter, no strings, no branes... nothing.

2) What you provided was an incoherent and incorrect attempt to equate different states of matter with an absence of everything / anything.

3) I don't accept it because it is objectively incorrect.

 

No, you're seeing the light that was emitted by that object at some point in the past, meaning you see what that object looked like in the past.

 

i have more interesting evolution and scientific argument, visit:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88797

 

I feel you on all that. I know there is a diff. between evolution and the actual beginning of what we know as the Big F'in Bang. I was sort of being sarcastic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bishadi
if you want truth and are ready to be fair, than i will assist you and unlike the rest of the opinions, the only time i will agree or disagree is if i can prove it.

debate is it true that evolution is a belief or is it a fact

 

Evolution is a fact.

The plants and animals that were alive in the past (both recent and distant) were different from the plants and animals we see today.
Therefore they must have changed ( another word for evolved) to become the animals we see today.
The theory of evolution explains how this fact came about

 

'Evolution' the words itself, is used as a description for the observed process. Darwin did not provide the math at the atomic scale to define what he saw, nor did he coin the word evolution.

But since knowledge is 'in fact' progressing over time, does prove that 'energy' and the progression of, does evolve.

Point being, the argument as applying to living structures does have flaws in that the current sciences do not have the math to define the progression because of the limitation placed into physics by the 2nd law (planck).

So to have the argument based on the platypus being 'created' versus evolving, is limited by both side of the arguments data base.

but to comprehend, that 'words' are the creation of mankind, and evolve over time, as each new generation coins new words and definitions;

then it can be substantiated by reality that all belief systems are the creation of mankind, words, books, ideas, and renditions.

WE both know we can 'feel' existence (God) but that does not mean them having the experience had the words to define what they experienced.

That is what the progression from OT to NT proves perfectly.

just as most every religion suggests 'a new beginning' will unfold when the 'last chapter' (revealing) unfolds

(pretty much why Jesus is represented as 'he will return'.... rather than having unveiled the last chapter 2k yrs back)

the works (truth) had not evolved for the period.

 

CptBork

That's not what science says. Noone knows what happened prior to the Big Bang. Our theories aren't developed enough to even describe the very first instant of the universe, let alone what came before. We don't even know if words such as "before" have any physical meaning when talking about the Big Bang.

your wrong bec they did say it came from nothing and we cant comphend nothing bec people think of darkness or White which is something is it not so when you say nothing it cant be comphendable but not like you i have my resource and this is from scientist that believe in evolution big-bang-theory this is the cite big-bang-theory add com to all my resources

CPTBorg

That's pure conjecture on your part. Science doesn't say all of existence began at this point, only that the universe as we know it began there. Show me a specific NASA quote that says otherwise and where you found it.

they said five years from now they might find out all existence didnt begin there but as of now it did you just ahead of the game that all

CPTBorg

Let's start with cosmic evidence. Stars that form in known processes take a certain period of time to reach the states they are in today, putting a minimum bound on the age of the universe. Cosmic microwave background temperature measurements put a very precise estimate on how long it's been since the Big Bang. Hubble redshift measurements tell us about the rate of expansion of the universe and together with general relativity allow us to calculate how long it's been since every point in the universe was located at the singularity. And these are just a few of the methods being used today to date the universe. Each of these measurements can be reproduced consistently, again and again, using millions of different sets of stars and galaxies as independent data sets to double check results. See here: haven't even mentioned Earth-based evidence and I'm really just scratching the surface here. When scientists talk about billions of years, it's not just some figure they came up with while watching football.

one thang wrong with that asumption it from wikipedia which we all know they have false information i will still look at it and get back to you on it

CPTborg

There have simply been no scientifically documented, proven miracles. Ever. Not even close. These days even the Vatican is starting to back away from declaring supernatural miracles when it canonizes people, because the scientific scrutiny has become much more intense now than it used to be when eyewitness testimony was taken at face value. As far as mathematical miracles go, the probability of obtaining any specific outcome in the universe is infinitesimally small. The probability of obtaining a collection of qualitatively similar outcomes is infinitely greater. The true probability of lifeforms similar to us emerging somewhere in the universe is as yet unknown, because there are an absurd number of unknown variables we have no way of accounting for. The attempts of the intelligent design movement to calculate or estimate these probabilities are nothing less than idiotic.

Maybe you should look up thangs before you talktopix/forum/topstories/TRMCDO3PKUSN3FGM8 add com after talk topix

CPTBorg

You just don't get it. Current theories suggest time as we know it started at the Big Bang. "Before" is a useless word in describing the first moment. That means for all we know, the universal laws at the point of the Big Bang don't include the need for causality. We simply don't know, and our point is that you Bible thumpers don't know either.

But we do know but i start that in a diffrent thread because it wuld be getting off in Religion but what i will say we have documented proof of God you dont have document proof of evolution that i havent seen yet

CPTborg
Oh things change, alright. Continents shift all the time, this has been thoroughly measured and, from time to time, felt (earthquakes). Have you not noticed how South America and Africa almost look like they could fit together on a jigsaw puzzle? All our evidence indicates that at one time these continents were joined at the hip, and over a period of millions of years, the single major world landmass (Pangea) ripped apart and became the world as we see it today. As for carbon dating, of course it relies on many assumptions about external conditions. But fossils come in many varieties. Some have been exposed to the atmosphere, some are trapped deep inside sediment deposits where gases can't enter or escape. Everything must be accounted for when attempting to conclude something with scientific certainty, and this is one reason why many different, independent methods are used to measure the same thing over and over in virtually every branch of science.

that an observation that not in the books and no you are wrong about the magnetic field here the math lol
and about the txt books go ahead spin off you know the math doesnt add up

 

No. Truthfully, evolution is NOT a fact. It's in FACT a proposed and accepted scientific process that cannot be readily duplicated. ONLY when we can readily replicate the evolutionary process will evolution itself become fact. Until then it is only a belief that is accepted by many as being the most logical possibility.

I have always contended that evolutionary absolutism requires just as much faith as does believing the earth and all of creation occurred in 6 24 hour periods of time.

ANYTHING that cannot be proved, cannot be logically considered absolute.

 

of course it is a fact but there are so many things that apply to the word. what you are doing is guessing though and the reality is that extinction is a reality. truth of the matter is that any reticence i have has nothing to do with religion. perhaps some spirituality and a reluctance to believe that life will simply take care of itself.

 

CPTBorg

I did forget to mention one very important and damning point. Light is known to travel in vacuum at roughly 186 000 mph, always. With our optical instruments we can see stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away. That means it took light billions of years to get from there to here. We see what those stars looked like billions of years ago when they emitted the light that's reaching us now, and it's consistent with what we expect older stars much closer to us to have looked like that far back in the past, and what newly formed stars look like today.

Why would God be playing tricks on us and fast forwarding all that light to make the universe look billions of years old?

it doesnt that an assumption scientist had make something up so they could keep God out of it and you can say that it doesnt disagree but it does and to make it true they had to say billions of years ago to make it possible for them to be right

 

The plants and animals that were alive in the past (both recent and distant) were different from the plants and animals we see today.
Therefore they must have changed ( another word for evolved) to become the animals we see today.
The theory of evolution explains how this fact came about

is it then why cant they make life they know what chemicals were on the rock but they can branch it off and im not talking artifical life either

 

Bishadi

were the proof of the earth being estimation of 4.6 billion years old and i could be wrng on the year

 

John 99 that a belief my friend not a fact you just explain a belief but good try