Creation vs Evolution Debate

I hope you all had a good weekend. I see a few questions were left...Cool.

I'm kind of busy at work today so I don't know how much time I'll have here, but I'll try to get some of these answered.

Do you not think stellar nucleosynthesis is sufficient to produce heavier elements?

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called "first-generation stars" (also called "population III stars"). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.




Ok, there a few problems with this theory.
First were did the "H" and "He" come from to make the 1st star?

Also there is not enough supernova to account for all the known matter.

There is also the "helium mass 4 gap" problem which is suppose to make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements.

We can see supernova and we have only observed hydrogen and helium out-gassing no other heavier metals.

You can read more about these and other problems at...
evolution-facts.org...
(bottom section of this page)

Per the Hovind comments...

I agree that Hoving contradicted himself on the 5%, 4% thing. I must admit I have not looked too deeply into the DNA different on Neanderthals and moneys, but now that you pointed it out I will. Personally I've spent most my time on the physical science type stuff. However I think the reason why so many animals seem to have common DNA or protein is because we can't eat rocks to get the protein we need to survive we need animals and plants to right stuff so to speak, and also because we came from a common maker. I think evolution and creationist do share the idea of some common component, we just vary on what or who it is. We say God you say soup.

Next was claims about light speed being variable. The constant speed of light stuff was formed by Einstein's Special Relativity which I have studied, and YES there is room for it to be variable. In fact there many main stream scientist are talking about this now. I posted a long thread on this here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Also look at my signature it is a quote from Einstein.

As far as the sonar being in the EM Fields comments, I don't know why he say that other then trying simplify things, I don't know. He should have been more careful with his words knowing that everything he would say would be put through the ringing.


And the tired money argument, might be old but is a good one. We don't see any animals evolving into new types of animals. It just doesn't happen. Evolution says were evolving yet we never see anything new added to animals, at some point we should see the beings of new body part or something, it's just not happening.

Originally posted by ebe51
You can read more about these and other problems at...
evolution-facts.org...
(bottom section of this page)

I stopped reading when I read this:

"Evolutionist scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing."

and this:

"The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is."

These 2 oh so unscientific and false statements are just basically lies, based on blind faith and misunderstanding. It just shows how far some people go to give their god some credit.

Wait the big bang theory does say everything started from nothing, of couse there are few different ideas on this, some say all matter was collected into a single point, but I think now the most expected one is "nothing then bang".

As far as the second one you posted I kind of agree with you, but don't let it stop you reading the rest. Go to very bottom of the page, then scroll up till you see the first "1." and start from there down.



[edit on 6-8-2007 by ebe51]

Dinosaur....
Well, they were at the time of men. The word Dinosaur was coined in the 1850's before that they were dragons, and EVERY culture has there own story of them, The bible, China, Indonesia, Korean, Portugal....and list goes on and on. The only question is what happen to them. Well the stories tell us they were hunted down. Nobody wants to live next to a Dinosaur so they went the way of the buffo.

Dinosaur / Dragons are literally all over historical writing enough so that it makes you wonder how all these different culture are recording the same things.

(I'll get to flying squarl thing later)

Originally posted by ebe51
Dinosaur....
Well, they were at the time of men. The word Dinosaur was coined in the 1850's before that they were dragons, and EVERY culture has there own story of them, The bible, China, Indonesia, Korean, Portugal....and list goes on and on. The only question is what happen to them. Well the stories tell us they were hunted down. Nobody wants to live next to a Dinosaur so they went the way of the buffo.

and in every culture the stories vary wildly. in china gods are seemingly omnipotent and benevolent, in europe the dragon is a malevolent beast that kidnaps people....

until we find the remains of a "dragon" or dinosaur that doesn't date back to 65+ million years ago i'll stick with the science.

Dinosaur / Dragons are literally all over historical writing enough so that it makes you wonder how all these different culture are recording the same things.

but they aren't the same things. they're different in demeanor, appearance, size, and ability.

ebe51, when are you going to address everything else i pointed out?

I think now the most expected one is "nothing then bang".

Nope. They should take physics classes before writing those websites trying to debunk science.

but don't let it stop you reading the rest. Go to very bottom of the page, then scroll up till you see the first "1." and start from there down.

Well it does. If they don't understand the big bang theory or the theory of evolution and simple high school physics then they can't disprove them. The rest of their arguments just lose all credibility.

Dinosaur....
Well, they were at the time of men. The word Dinosaur was coined in the 1850's before that they were dragons, and EVERY culture has there own story of them, The bible, China, Indonesia, Korean, Portugal....and list goes on and on.

No they haven't. They are not in the bible. The only passage I can think of is the one about the Behemoth and the Leviathan, which are only giant mythological animals, not dinosaurs. They rank up with the giant squid that attacks galleons, dragons, and any other mythological creatures.

ebe51, when are you going to address everything else i pointed out?

I think all IOU is something on the flying squarl, which after I get some more big bang stuff, I'll come back to it.

Nope. They should take physics classes before writing those websites trying to debunk science

If not "nothing" then what?
I realize the word "nothing" is word play, but I think its good word play in this case. Per the big bang theory all the matter in the universe was balled up into a point as small as quantum particle, or into a singularity. That's pretty much nothing.

Well it does. If they don't understand the big bang theory or the theory of evolution and simple high school physics then they can't disprove them. The rest of their arguments just lose all credibility.

Also they do understand the theories, and I wouldn't call the 2nd point you listed earlier wrong as much as I would call it weak. Yet, here's the deal. You might read information or web-page from a creationist and it might list 20 facts and 5 of them might be wrong or weak, does that mean all the facts or wrong? Is that your thinking? Because if you were to be that critical of information for evolution, then it's already been pointed there a few flaws in it, and by this standard all of evolution is wrong.
You see it's not wise to find one flaw and assume all is flawed.

No they haven't. They are not in the bible.

Dinosaur/dragons aren't in the bible look again...Here just one passage I found quickly...
Psalm 44:19 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)


Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

Originally posted by ebe51
If not "nothing" then what?
I realize the word "nothing" is word play, but I think its good word play in this case. Per the big bang theory all the matter in the universe was balled up into a point as small as quantum particle, or into a singularity. That's pretty much nothing.

it's actually quite the opposite. the sum of all matter is actually known as EVERYTHING

Also they do understand the theories, and I wouldn't call the 2nd point you listed earlier wrong as much as I would call it weak. Yet, here's the deal. You might read information or web-page from a creationist and it might list 20 facts and 5 of them might be wrong or weak, does that mean all the facts or wrong? Is that your thinking? Because if you were to be that critical of information for evolution, then it's already been pointed there a few flaws in it, and by this standard all of evolution is wrong.
You see it's not wise to find one flaw and assume all is flawed.

i've never gone to a creationist website that had 20 points with a single one of them that was right.

Dinosaur/dragons aren't in the bible look again...Here just one passage I found quickly...
Psalm 44:19 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

you're right, the dragons are there... and so are unicorns. do you believe in unicorns?

now, are you going to address that hovind has no understanding of what the electromagnetic spectrum is?
are you going to address that he has repeatedly repeated the myth that evolution states we came from monkeys?

Originally posted by ebe51
If not "nothing" then what?
I realize the word "nothing" is word play, but I think its good word play in this case. Per the big bang theory all the matter in the universe was balled up into a point as small as quantum particle, or into a singularity. That's pretty much nothing.

It's not nothing. Nothing doesn't exist, and the big bang is not ex nihilo.

Also they do understand the theories, and I wouldn't call the 2nd point you listed earlier wrong as much as I would call it weak. Yet, here's the deal. You might read information or web-page from a creationist and it might list 20 facts and 5 of them might be wrong or weak, does that mean all the facts or wrong? Is that your thinking? Because if you were to be that critical of information for evolution, then it's already been pointed there a few flaws in it, and by this standard all of evolution is wrong.
You see it's not wise to find one flaw and assume all is flawed.

The facts are always wrong, and rise from misunderstandings of evolution and/or intellectual dishonesty.

"Evolutionist scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing."

Evolutionary biologists study life and how it adapts to changing envirronments, not the universe and how it begun sorry.

"It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together,—and then explode outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless," so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons."

The big bang does not say that "nothing was packed together and then blew up into hydrogen"...simply reading a few serious books about it will allow you to understand, but these simply don't want to, can't understand, or have an agenda.

"The originators—*George Lemaitre, a Belgian"

They forgot to mention that he wa actually a christian priest.

"As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed"

Actually protons and neutrons did not fly out of the singularity. A simple passage on a website would learn you this much.

I could continue down the page as there's at least one scientific misconception about this theory per line but I really couldn't be bothered.

Psalm 44:19 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

I got this :

"But You have severely broken us in the place of jackals,
And covered us with the shadow of death. "

And dragons are not dinosaurs anyways.

This is the NEW King James Version
"But You have severely broken us in the place of jackals,
And covered us with the shadow of death. "

The (old) King James version says dragons.

Anyway you guys want facts right, I pointed out some already, but I'll provide a list for you all here shortly. As for now I've gotten real busy at work and will have to put this thread aside for day or two.

I will be back.


[edit on 7-8-2007 by ebe51]

Please present actual scientific evidence that god/creation is real.
Remember, simply disproving evolution is not enough.

I've read quite a bit on this topic and have NEVER seen any ACTUAL, factually accurate information, proving creationism.

To answer, "before the big bang, nothing?"

Because we don't know exactly what happened before the big bang doesn't mean god did it. It just means we don't have an answer.

If you see an assembled ship in a bottle, you don't assume that because the bottle opening is too big for the ship to fit, GOD DID IT!

Does god help all magicians do their magic tricks just because you don't know how they performed them????

Imo, I think Evolutionists need to think twice before attacking religion because macro-evolution is still only theory and can't be proved.

Yes you may have 'observed' it by looking at fossil record but appearances can be deceiving.

Originally posted by otester
but appearances can be deceiving.

So can ancient books.

Originally posted by otester
Imo, I think Evolutionists need to think twice before attacking religion because macro-evolution is still only theory and can't be proved.

no, it's a theory that CAN be proved.
do you know what is is "ONLY" a theory? cellular biology.

Yes you may have 'observed' it by looking at fossil record but appearances can be deceiving.

yes, like the illusion of design

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by otester
Imo, I think Evolutionists need to think twice before attacking religion because macro-evolution is still only theory and can't be proved.

no, it's a theory that CAN be proved.
do you know what is is "ONLY" a theory? cellular biology.

Yes you may have 'observed' it by looking at fossil record but appearances can be deceiving.

yes, like the illusion of design

Yes there are ways to prove it but they are not physically possible at the moment.

Originally posted by otester
Yes there are ways to prove it but they are not physically possible at the moment.

no, it has been proven. look at all the evidence available and it proves evolution. look at species becoming new species, we've seen it happen (don't ask me for examples, melatonin's the expert on this one)

Maybe you guys missed the news today or are just avoiding it but there is another thread on it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The point is that the "theory" that you all accept as fact has been blown wide open!

Welcome back "intelligent design", but then you never left, you were just buried under liberal rhetoric.

news.yahoo.com...

Explain this one away Mr. Science!