Evolution Officially Debunked!!!, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 07:47 PM by Allred5923
REPLY to :
feriousracer313

So then how did we get all these elements?


Where to begin, where too begin???

Ah!! The beginning!!

In the early universe, as a result of the rapid collisions between particles, there was a state of thermal equilibrium. The reason this is so important is that things in thermal equilibrium can be quantified. This means that the system can be described by mathematical formulas, and that predictions can be made as to how the system would would change with time. Therefore, we can follow the evolution of the early universe through these formulas, even though we weren't there.


Up to this time (just over three minutes past the Beginning) there had been no nucleosynthesis. This was a result of the high energy density. In order to form atomic nuclei, the nucleons (the scientific word for protons and neutrons) must be able to collide and stick together. In the early universe the key reaction was the collision of a proton and a neutron to form a deuterium nucleus (an isotope of hydrogen). Collisions between protons and neutrons had been happening continuously since the Beginning, but their energies were too high to allow them to stick together to form deuterium nuclei.
This prevented further nuclear reactions leading to heavier nuclei. This type of situation where an intermediate product is the weak link in the overall synthesis is sometimes called a "bottleneck." This concept also applies in nucleosynthesis of heavier elements. Once the bottleneck is overcome, the remaining reactions are able to be completed. In the early universe, once the deuterium bottleneck was cleared, the newly formed deuterium could undergo further nuclear reactions to form Helium.


But, the remaining electrons still had plenty of energy, so it took about 700,000 years of cooling until this was able to occur. The capture of electrons to form atoms resulted in an important change in the universe. At that moment, without free electrons to interact with the photons present, the universe became transparent to radiation. This means that the photons were freely able to expand with the universe. These photons had high energies, which means that they had short wavelengths. But the expansion of the universe caused the wavelengths to get stretched out as the universe grew. These stretched out photon wavelengths are what we now refer to as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). They are a leftover from the Big Bang. We have been able to measure the intensity of this background radiation, and it has closely matched that which is predicted from theoretical calculations. This has been a strong evidence in support of the "Big Bang" theory of the creation of the universe.


aether.lbl.gov...

It was the advent of bacterial-micro/macrobian interaction, it is what we are all made of, even the terrorists and the satanists are made of the same thing's you are, there is little debate that the very, but the one thing for sure is "We are all Stardust, from the Universe, from the beginning.."

So, hope that the explanation was sufficient, would have written all in my own words, but it was much easier doing it this way.

And by the way "Most mainstream scientists revert to the 'Big-Bang' theory as a absolute coincidence as an actual event." and that is why I use it to refer to your request.

And, "That's where we came from" or "The thing's we are made from comes from.."

"Reply to" button not working again MOD's?

[edit on 073131p://5074 by Allred5923]


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 08:19 PM by Mr Mxyztplk
reply to post by furiousracer313



Can you maybe point out what you find to be the more compelling points made in the video so we can rebut them more efficiently as opposed to us just ripping this up en mass?
come it's Kent Hovind the entire video is bunk.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 08:24 PM by ghaleon12
reply to post by Solomons



My point is to say that God could use any of the theories we come up with to create the world. I think it's safe to say none of our observations (which is step #1 in science) can prove or disprove God, we have to experience for ourselves what the truth is.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 08:25 PM by blowfishdl
Originally posted by ghaleon12
reply to
post by Solomons



My point is to say that God could use any of the theories we come up with to create the world. I think it's safe to say none of our observations (which is step #1 in science) can prove or disprove God, we have to experience for ourselves what the truth is.


However we are debating Evolution, not God. That is a whole different thread. Thanks for the input though.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 08:31 PM by ghaleon12
reply to post by blowfishdl



It's a thread talking about evolution and religion, I think God has a place in here. I'm responding to what the speaker is saying in the video, and I assume that is what this thread it about.

Part of the problem is that evolution had been so heavily tied into "atheism" and religion is so tied into certain ideas of creationism. So if evolution were to be proven, some religious folk would be horrified. And if evolution were to be debunked, then some religious folk would be ecstatic. Really the question of evolution vs. creationism is sort of a "front" if you will between science and religion, that is why the question is so important for some. And this guy clearly is using his anti-evolution stance to bolster his 1# priority, Christianity. But this whole "battle" is pointless and it shouldn't carry any weight for atheists or religious folk and I find it frustrating to no end from both sides.

But like others, I wouldn't quite say that evolution is debunked. He brings up some interesting questions about the conservation of rotation, or whatever it was called, but science is a work in progress. Science can't always have all the answer at a particular time, and who knows, there might already be a known answer to his point.


[edit on 12-12-2008 by ghaleon12]



reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 08:37 PM by Allred5923
reply to post by furiousracer313



You must of not read the whole article that I had posted for you to read, the Iron you speak of was once of another molecular structure form that eventually made the consistency it needed to become what it currently is.

Go back, read the site article, get back to me and after you read the first article, go to the site below for in-depth explanations of our elemental table and the compounds of which they exist.
And "Yes." They did come from nothing , essentially, but ironic that they too had became something other than what they once were....

www.americanelements.com...


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 09:13 PM by furiousracer313
Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
reply to
post by furiousracer313



Can you maybe point out what you find to be the more compelling points made in the video so we can rebut them more efficiently as opposed to us just ripping this up en mass?
come it's Kent Hovind the entire video is bunk.


Its quit funny how satan tries to bring down people who tell the truth... haha...
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 16 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 6 days ago with 6 member flags
Evolution. Not a theory, but a fact!
  Posted 18 days ago with 4 member flags
Evolutionary theory: Gaps and not yet understood phenonemon
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags