Oh so now this is all my fault. It was my choice to be insulted.

You know, when you've done something wrong you usually go "my bad" and then forget about it. Not dig the hole deeper. Then again this is the internet and most people would die before admitting they made a mistake.

No actually, it doesn't apply to macroscopic bodies, it applies mainly to the microscopic view of an atom. On a large scale basis, being a macroscopic collision, some energy can be converted from kinetic energy into thermal energy through friction, or when one body is larger than the other, one will travel faster than the other. Although there is velocity change in many collisions, no energy is ever lost, just transferred between atoms. Of course this will apply to the big bang.

Here's a definition of boiling:
Boiling (also called ebullition), a type of phase transition, is the rapid vaporization of a liquid, which typically occurs when a liquid is heated to its boiling point, the temperature at which the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by the surrounding environmental pressure. Thus, a liquid may also boil when the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere is sufficiently reduced, such as the use of a vacuum pump or at high altitudes.

This means that if you take a liquid into space, whenever a molecule collides into another molecule they will veer off in different directions. The atoms at the edge of this liquid will veer off into space and continue along their path, resulting in the entire pressurized group of atoms to all disperse. The only way these atoms would not disperse is if they were compacted together from an external pressure, which does not exist in space.

This is why no stars have ever been seen created, because they were created 6000 yrs ago or so.


No, this will not allow the particles to be drawn together, this will allow the particles less collisions if there is a low pressure, but whenever there is a collision, due to elasticity (i'm not talking about chemical reactions in which neutrinos take an effect, just atom collisions) the atoms will knock into each other, and undergoe a transfer of momentum. the gravitational force between two atoms, is extremely tiny, and unless the atoms were set down touching each other with almost no momentum at all they would hit and veer off in opposing directions. Now if the pressure was greater, then the combined force of gravity, and the external pressure being laid upon the gas by the spherical boundry will allow the atoms to slide along one another without veering off into random directions from collisions. This is the state known as a liquid. Without this external pressure, no grouping of atoms in a vacuum can be achieved.


The problem with this example is: it calls for an enclosed area very small compared to the universe. I'm not even sure where you got this idea from, but the only way for these atoms to group together using gravitational force would be if energy is lost to the outside of the boundary, which wouldn't make any sense at all as there are no practical applications of such a system in our universe.


So you mean, you want matter to be able to form life on its own, but you know it can't. But you will never accept an authority like God, so you'll just ignore choosing a side to the question all together because you don't like the idea of having a boss, or accepting a ridiculous idea like evolution.

About the whole intelligent design and creationism; Intelligent design, a variation of which is called the Gap Theory, believes that God used evolution to create man. You said you don't believe a man can be made from the dirt, but you believe a cell magically popped alive, and changed dramatically, survived for millions of years, and slowly and magically progressed into things bigger and better through death. These beings then later on start mating.. from the usual method of budding. Then moved onto land, and gained lungs. Well, how in the world would a fish, start to move around on land. And even if it did, how would a fish halfway in between gills and lungs breathe? Why would this fish stop using it's gills, and become solely dependent on lungs? There shouldn't be very much food a fish like mouth can eat on land.. so this would have to breathe with its lungs ONLY, and travel into the water (mind you its getting used to the land to develope feet) for food. Then after it became dependant upon land started to fly? Now, i don't have wings, so if my species started jumping and waving my hands frequently, will we start sprouting wings?

Look, having a creator is much more logical than random chance in which the creators of the idea they don't know anything about how anything happened. And having a creator use evolution destroys the need for christ as there would be death before sin, so that one is illogical as well.

Here's an example, say you see a building on the side of the road. And you think, wow, it must have taken 10 men to build that thing. Then your buddy next to you says, wow, the chances of that happening by nature are like 1 in 1^85742039750934759879503475. And you think, no, that was made by 10 men, it didn't just randomly happen. Would it be logical to look at your house, and say: I do not think that house had a creator?

The same thing applies to our world. You shouldn't look at our universe without saying, wow look what God made in 6 days.

Good job, you can ignore facts, Cecil! How do laws about atoms apply to the big bang, when there were no atoms until several hundred thousand years after the big bang? I explained this in my previous post. You demand that we give you an argument, but then you conveniently ignore them.

If you'd like a point-by-point answer to all your questions about evolution, I could give it to you. It's simply astounding that you know so little about evolution yet you try to make an argument against it while showing a completely lack of understanding. It's hard to articulate it. You should seriously do some reading about evolution before you argue against it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 21 2008, 1:48 pm by SilentAlfa.

You totally don't get Evolution at all, do you? Billions of years ago, the conditions on Earth(water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2)) created amino acids and other organic compounds by using lightning as activation energy.₁. Cells arose from these organic compounds along with DNA and RNA, acting as catalysts. Throughout natural selection and mutations of the DNA, the cells grew increasingly complex and evolved into small ocean creatures(plankton, etc.) over a course of millions of years; Sea life grew increasingly complex over millions of years. For any sea creatures living near land, the first amphibians arose, perhaps due to the massive extinction events sweeping the globe.₂ The sea creatures/amphibians that eventually became land dominant over time slowly lost their gills and were replaced by lungs(some modern creatures have both, take a look at the life cycles of frogs).

On the whole flying thing, no, you aren't going to magically grow wing. Why? Because your body doesn't need wings because it is better suited to live on the ground.


I don't see how religion is more logical. Logically, it is much more unlikely that a creator exists, refer to Occam's Razor.₃ Can you argue against evolution WITHOUT using religion(which you've flip flopped numerous times on)? You know that the Christian religion isn't the first religion right?


I wasn't aware the chances of a human constructed building randomly spontaneously generating in nature had the odds of occurring at 1:1. I am aware that it's there because 10 men were told to build it because demand from the government asked for it to be built to fill a community need.

Yes, my house did have a creator: dozens of Latino workers and several architects. However, it did not spontaneously appear out of no where because a magical sky wizard decided it to be so.

Cited stuff, so you can't ignore/disclaim it:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician-Silurian_extinction_events
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Tell that to the Lungfish

No, extremely simple, self-replicating proteins formed first.


No, the cells didn't survive for millions of years. Each resulting generation was slightly different.


Yes, through deaths of organisms unfit to live, hence allowing better adapted organisms to reproduce more.


The organisms have always had the ability to reproduce. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Reproduction is a defining characteristic of life. They don't suddenly get the ability to do so.


Hell are you talking about?


well lol it was this amazing little thing called an amphibian, which can both swim and move around on land


moisture on the skin. like say, an amphibian.


If it no longer goes to the water as much to swim, why would it need gills? They would waste energy during development, hence they would eventually become atrophied remnants of ancestors, like human's pharyngeal gills or appendices.


the fish didn't go on land to eat, they went on land to avoid predation, and the eating of stuff on land came later.


no, the lungs came after the feet and organs for digestion of land plants came, duh? I don't get why you're purposefully putting the stages of evolution out of order. You are INTENTIONALLY looking at this illogically, for a reason I can't comprehend.


No, some evolved to fly. Flying in birds initially developed from the flapping of arms to get up steep inclines. Flying in mammals developed from jump tree to tree. Flying in fish developed through jumping out of the water.


I'm starting to think that you actually do believe in evolution, and you're just being an idiot to make people talk.

He's talking about the change from cell division, to male-female mating. It's very easy to see that's what he's talking about so I really can't understand how you missed it. If you could kindly refrain from this debate I believe it would benefit Cecil. Often in the middle of a forum debate (with multiple persons), if a person finds himself in a corner he can usually get out of it by responding to someone on the other side with the least intelligence. I've seen this happen countless times in god/evolution/political topics. Commentators like Jabok really get at the meat of the issue and pretty respectfully rebut what he says. You do nothing but stir anger in him and fail miserably at getting through to him at all. But if your intention here is not to actually try to educate him and instead get him pissed off then people like you are the reason God Topics and such never result in anything but 2 sides flaming each other. I'm ashamed to have you on my side of this issue.

Budding is an asexual method of reproduction. Mating is a sexual method of reproduction. Hence when I read it, it sounded like he was talking about reproduction in general because instead of saying "they started mating instead of budding,", he said "they start mating from the usual method of budding" which sounds like he's saying they began have sexual reproduction through an asexual method of reproduction. Huh? He should articulate his argument better. I think I adequately addressed his argument. He listed his concerns point-by-point, I responded to them point-by-point.

He also continues to post false information even after I told him it was wrong. The big bang did not involve atoms, I posted this a while ago, yet he still posts as if the big bang does involve atoms. He says I think things "magically" happened. He doesn't respect my argument, so it is fair for me not to respect his.

Well, I think you need to crack open a physics textbook, cause you seem to have forgotten that thermodynamics is basically 100% macroscopic. The nature of matter means that in an object with an average Ek per atom of X (Temperature of X), there will be atoms with different temperatures (Kinetic Energy) floating around and bouncing off eachother. Microscopically, temperature doesn't exist, macroscopically, it exists with almost perfect functionality. The Boyle-Mariotte law works the same way. What it means is that pressure times volume is constant when temperature and the quantity of gas is constant. This means that when the volume is as large as the universe, the pressure should be very small. This law is not true when the area in question is large enough for gravitational energy to come in to effect.

Practical application: A cloud of gas forms a galaxy.
(The example I used showed that when we talk in the realm of trillions of light years, even 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter will create enough force of attraction to pull the entire thing together, which is how galaxies are formed, change some numbers around and you can calculate the time it takes for things to get to the density levels you need for stars to form)

Your understanding of energy seems to need a bit of work, because you failed to note that when gravity compacts gasses, the kinetic energy doesn't get lost, it simply means that you end up with a system that includes lots of very hot gas that is being drawn together by it's own mass. Kind of like a star. If you actually read my explanation you would have realized that if you take a system the size of the universe, the force pulling things together is even more massive. Since you obviously refuse to believe a logical scientific explanation, I'll have to cop out and go find a site that shows a rudimentary fact or two about how stars are formed.

There ya go

Evidence that stars can form when clumps of gas in space collide.

Having a creator is not more logical than random chance. Having a creator implies that something can come in to existence without being created, IE. "what created god?" That in itself shows that using our existence as proof that we were created is invalid, by categorical logic, which, when stated simply means the following: You can't say we exist, therefore we were created, because you would have to apply that logic to our creator, and it's creator, and so on and so forth. Effectively, this is proof that something can exist without being created, because otherwise we would find ourselves in an eternal cycle of creators, with no explanation for the first creator whatsoever. There is no logical recourse for this problem, because basic principles of logic cannot solve the dilemma that is created. The only solution is to either believe that nothing can create something by itself, or that existence has always existed and was never created. Believing in an absolute creator is not logical in the slightest.

The concept of having a creator (that's a dumb word, let's use intelligence) design everything does in fact show that there is death before sin, and does make that primitive concept useless. However, you can't go around saying that something is illogical because it contradicts a 4000 year old myth, it's much more reasonable to say that the myth is illogical.

I know that people created houses. As another note, 1 raised to the power of any number is 1, so a 1 in 1 chance is a 100% chance. Please proofread your arguments. Anyways, your analogy is pointless, you take something that we know is created by man and compare it to something for which we cannot say anything similar. Logic tells us that we do not know what caused the big bang, it also tells us that 4000 years ago they were probably less able to answer the question than we are now.

Even some of the most fundamentalist religious people don't think that way. At this point it is probably best if you ask your pastor or some other member of your church whether or not they really believe that God created the world in 6 days, or if they believe instead that it's part of a story that is meant to instill morals in people. I have never found a church that doesn't believe the latter, though I am often surprised by people's willingness to believe what they are told without asking for proof or logical sense.

Well Why did the lungfish stop evolving halfway for millions of years, while other lungfish kept evolving?

I didn't read anything other than the 1st post...

"Evolution" isn't a very confusing word.. It should be thought of as the long term affect of Natural Selection. Each creature nowadays has been "Evolved" .. or in other words.. "Selected" to be what they are now.. They are very adapted to their environment.. Thus they thrive. "Mutation" is a change in the genetic code.. which May or May not change the organism's Phenotype (Physical properties) into something that Benefits them IN that Environment, or NOT benefit them IN that Environment.

For example.. Let's look at the ol' White vs Black Moth thingy..

Back in the old days, before INdustrial revolution.. Trees were white with Lichen.. And the White Speckled Moths lives on the trees. They are VERY WELL Camoflouged because their white. Mutations occurs occasionally and randomly.. giving black moths..
The Genes for the black moths are sometimes passed to their progeny. But they are rare because they are easily picked off by predators and thus do not thrive.

What happened was the pollutions got worse and killed the lichens off trees.. and now the trees are black..
Suddenly.. The wild type genes (giving the White Phenotype of Moths) became UNAdaptive.. because predators can now easily see them. Also.. the mutated version of the moths, the Black moths.. started to Thrive because of their camoufloge.
The Black Moths' Gene (Which initially was a mutation) became ADAPTIVE to its current environment.. and Thus, the population increases, and the White moths decreases.

THIS is Natural Selection...
IF this trend Continues... the white moths may have to seperate and migrate to another area where there are trees with white lichen, and the Black moths will take over the area where it is polluted.. After time passes... the two versions of the same moths will become different species..
THAT is EVOLUTIOn

Natural selection does NOT ALWAYS lead to evolution.. prime example would be the moths again.. because of a bill passed to decrease pollution, lichen's growing again, and now the black moths are down and white moths are up. However, they still mate with each other (Not far apart enough) and are still the same species.


Evolution IS a "theory" .. everything is a "theory" at start. People theorized that Cystic Fibrosis was a cause of the Ca channels being blocked... and thus they tested it out on Mice.. and they found it correct. A Theory has to have Support from evidence. Obviously it is hard to get evidence for a process that happens for a long time.. But there are tons...

One example would be .. some bird species i forgot the name of.. at .. i think eastern africa. Anyways.. Their main food source was two types of berries. One of them was small.. one of them was large. The birds with larger beaks were able to survive better (not necessarily a mutation. This is Genetic variation) by feeding on the larger berries. The smaller beaks were able to survive better with the smalle berries. What happens was that the birds that survived better out competed with the birds in between. Therefore they seperated.. Over the course of thousands of years.. each year will bring newer combinations of genes that favor extremely large or small beaks. At the end, you're left with 2 species... That is Evolution....

Hope that straightens you out..

also.. to those who believe in creationism... ... ... good for you *pat pat*.. want a lollipop? It's created by special machines who were intended to be built by the god's creation called Man which will dominate and rule the earth and make you fat.

Actually it is called 'hypothesis' at start. When that hypothesis is proven, and if not corrected to explain the cause through something called 'the scientific method' it is then a theory. So it's not a theory at start.

While outwardly it would definitely appear to have stopped evolving, the Lungfish did not stop evolving. The lungfish population diverged in seperate directions, each evolving differently. The lungfish of today, for example, appears outwardly the same as lungfish would have millions of years ago, but closer inspection reveals that it has a much more modern bone structure. So, some lungfish developed to take better advantage of the land, for example, to avoid predators, while other lungfish kept mainly to the sea.

I only read the first 2 pages and the last one, but anyway, I'll just say something to this post by UnholyUrine.

People can have black hair and have descendants which have other coloured hair. What proof do you have that the black moths were actually mutations, rather than genes passed on which only developed in a small number of moths? And if that can't be prooved(SP?) then NO NEW SPECIES WERE CREATED! Survival of the fittest happened, sure, but no mutations that were beneficial happened, resulting in no evolution. I probably shouldn't say too much about this cos I haven't done the genes stuff in my Science book yet

And as to the people who say that God created the earth and then used evolution to make other life, why? and why would He lie and say He didn't in the Bible later anyway? If God has enough power to create life, and the universe, then He would easily have enough power to create fully developed creatures.

And JaBoK, why does God have to be created?

Ever heard of a frog? And evolution takes place over time. You may say its not a proven fact, and I'm not saying its real. Thats the greatest part of it being a theory.

A theory is defined as an explanation to our reality that is backed up by evidence determined through the scientific method.

You can not test evolution.. and evolution answers basic questions just like every other religion in the world.

I'm not against evolution as everyone has their own right to choose to follow whatever they want. I am just against flaws.. lies.. error. With evolution, all of its evidence has been discredited or answered by creationists.

Here are some questions that many people have over creation:

Who did Cain and Abel marry?
Why are the dinosaurs dead?
Where is the water to the flood?
Why is Jesus necessary?
How do we know that Jesus wasn't a fake?
What about the bible.. why would you believe in such an old document written so long ago by so many random people?
How could people cross the red sea..
How do you explain the ice age?
What about all the plate tectonics? Don't they show pangea?
How come only certain animals show up on certain continents?
What about Virus and Bacteria mutation?
Doesn't oil take millions of years to make?
Everyone knows petrification takes millions of years..
Carbon dating dates fossils millions of years back!
How do you believe that stars didn't take millions of years to form.
What did God do before he made earth?
Where did God come from?

I assure you I can answer all these questions, and I believe any other question you can come up with.

As for Jabok's reply.
You really need to work on your research! Atoms have perfectly elastic collisions! Though (edit)energy(edit) is often lost in the form of radiation during chemical reactions. This means that if the Big Bang would occur, then A LOT of energy would be lost in the form of radiating thermal energy into the abyss. This form of energy is not barely effected by gravity, as black holes have been known to release traces of thermal radiation. So if our big bang come from a previous big bang.. and so on.. sometime we would run out of energy, and the mass inside the big bang would sit dormant forever. So sometime, a big bang would HAVE to come from something.. something that isn't a normal part of our universe. So theorists say that the big bang first exploded from nothing.

Also jabok.. you can't post a completely random equation, and come up with a random conclusion that can not possibly ever happen.. You stated simply that gases without an external pressure could condense. This is not possible, take chemistry. The force of gravity compared to the forces of electricity and magnetism are immensely inferior, and this fact has boggled the minds of scientist for a very long time, one being Albert Einstein.

Other theorists think that plural universes in the 10th dimension collided and formed our universe. Though all dimensions past the 5th, i believe, start getting strange.. Also there is a thing called the string theory which deals with the 11th dimension, I know practically nothing about this though.

The point is, our matter has to come from somewhere, and saying the big bang isn't going to suffice. This goes against a law of thermodynamics, which states that all matter and energy can not ever be created or destroyed. Another law states that everything in our universe, if left alone without ample energy replenishment, will decay over time.

Our earth, and our universe cross both of these laws. Our matter had to have an origin, and our earth itself isn't deteriorating. The entire religion of Evolution crosses one of these laws. Some people can argue that the sun is supplying the earth with energy.. so it can bypass the deteriorating law of thermodynamics. Although, whenever raw energy, like the sun's rays are inflicted upon anything, the energy is always destructive. What happened when we added energy to hiroshima? Did it become a utopia? Go stand in the sun, and you may even become sunburn. The only biological thing on earth that can take in the suns rays is chlorophyll which supposedly evolved through natural selection.. LOL! How could the earth commence and "upgrade" without chlorophyll, as all the sun's rays would be destructive.

And for thoughs who were replying saying that the matter from the big bang was plasma.. Plasma is superheated gas. Hydrogen and a small amount of helium came from the big bang. Here is another problem. Chemical Evolution, evolution of the chemicals. Those who defend the big bang say that fusion created all the other natural occurring elements in our universe. Well check your research again, it's impossible to get past iron with fusion. What about all the other elements? Where did they come from?

There are plenty of flaws I could point out in evolution, but the point of my reply was to show that there are (edit)no(edit) problems with the creationist view, which so many people believe there are.

As for God needing a creation date. God is infinite, so why would something infinite be bound by time? God doesn't have, or need a creation date. Which goes to answer what God did before he made earth. Well, time was created in verse one in the bible. So there was no "before earth". That question is not properly worded to make sense. God is in all times of all of earth all at once.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 28 2008, 2:38 am by CecilSunkure.

You can't deny evolution. There is so much biological evidence and so much information regarding the fact of evolution that its just stupid now to say it doesnt exist and never happened. How do you expect life to mvoe on then? DO we just pop out of our old body and turn into some new life organism like god flicked his fingers and said so? No. Too much evidence denying that fact.

The bible states that earth is 7000 years old, which is physically, geographically, biologically, and astronomically IMPOSSIBLE. If the earth was 7000 eyars old, then those of you who say it is, explain the 200 million year old fossils? are those just 2000 years old? Hm... what about the rockies? and all other mountain chains? Clearly they have some form of age by layers of rock that date back to millions on years.

I agree based on my own religious beleifs that God can do everything and anything at any given or all given times past present future, but the fact of the matter is that the bible and all otehr religions, no offense to any one, is just a written story to tell people a simplified way the earth was made. Some say that "at first there was nothing, then there was God who created it all". Looka t it. The big bang was a matter of SECONDS to create trillions of light years of space and void. Its a story that people can understand. Adam and Eve + the apple refer to human basic survival when we first evolved to the homoerectus, or "caveman". Human-like creatures even exited before homoerectus ever did. Tiny people, apes, monkeys, etc.

Other stories such as Noah's Arc? Well wouldn't that explain the vast storm cell Earth had for millions of years to give it the oceans we have today? But the problem with Noah's Arc is that it was microscopic organisms, not real people. Look at any story from the bible, or otehr religions, and I guarentee it can relate to SOME kind of geographical breakthrough, or it is an awkward re-write of something else.

Also think, through the years of the first religion, God''s word passed down through scripes, but at some point wouldn't you think those scribes would stretch the truth or put it another way? There is no possible way that those thousands of years the bible was constantly re-written perfectly everytime. I just don't believe that.

Back to the point. Evolution is told in awkward ways through religion and science. Just look at the print in those books. There is always some connection. So again, it is near impossible to say it never existed. Even the heavy christians/catholics read the bible, which depicts and relates to Earth's and organism's survival. The fact of the matter is that with all the evidence and skepticism we have these dyas, you just can't say it didn't happen anymore.

Some of these are even easily answered by all the facts these days. The first one i can't answer in my own words because I simply don't know it.


2) DInosaurs had the worst of luck during the worst of days. Scientific evidence shows the infamous "asteroid" knocked them out of existence, which is why we only find bones and fossil records. Plus the giant gaping hole in arizona. Where else in history does that fit in? Also look at the Yucatan Peninsula in mexico. Part of that curve was caused by a giant asteroid hitting the earth. That could also be the case.

3) Like i said, it HAS to relate to the water appearance during the creation of earth billions of years ago. If the flood really did happen it can't just vanish. The flood relates closest to the water from back then, and now is our water today.

4) Jesus is the savior in some religions, which i believe relates to the evolution survival of the animal that finds food in the forest. I believe he was the icon for human survival and sacrifice.

5) We don't. Jerusalem "old city" sites claim to have the actual site of Jesus' crucifiction, but no one can actually tell from all the claims.

6) Once again, it is near impossible that the scribes of God's book didn't stretch the truth or add to it or subtract from it. There had to be many times in the period of the Bible that the scibes messed with its contents. Missing pages can also be a situation where the scribe must rewrite a page and might miss something. It is a very good question that should be asked to most religious followers

7) The story of moses opening the sea is ultimatley impossible in scientific terms. Currents would have been interuppted, the ecosystem there most likely demolished, and most likely thousands of animals would have died from the fail and lack of water. Back then egypt had a connect point between it and the middle east, that could be a possibility, or they could have made a long chain of chopped trees or timber connected by people or rope, and that could be a way.

8) Ice ages happen frequently and aquaint with global warming, which is a natural cycle, and scientific evidence proves so. Every once in a while the earth heats up and cools down, freezing itself at the poles and near the equator.

9) Geographical study shows that the plates under the Earth's crust have similar rock patterns, climates, ecosystems, fossils, and erosion and have similar coast lines. This in a sense to some proves the Pangean theory.

10) Once again with the pangean theory, different animals might have lived on certain parts of the land and can only survive there and only there, but may have cousins on the other continents.

11) Viruses and bacteria mutate and an extreme rate, which also proves evolution further, and they can change their basic genes to fit for survival.

12) Yes it does.

13) Yes it does. Once again proving the earth's age and evolutional processes.

14) Which proves the age of the earth to be more than 7000 years old, and adding to the point. Evolution takes millions upon millions of years and some skeletal remains fossilize, showing this process very slowly. This fossilization of animals and humans opens up gateways to evolution theories that have been proven wrong, right and backwards.

15) Religion

16) God simply did not exist before the creation of the universe, or to some he was a man in a dark room, planning what to do. To others he was very patient, and he was the time before time.

17) God came from his own existance, which is very hard to explain, and near impossible to go into.

With that i leave this debate. That's my opinion on things, I hope it added to this contraversy and trading of knwoledge

Oh Gods, your back.


Religion is the answer to where we go after death and if something has the infinite power to meddle with our lives; Evolution is the scientific process of how life and structure(think astrophysics for example), have come to their present forms and will be in the future.


Prove it, without falling back on logical fallacies AGAIN.


I asked you to answer basic creationist questions earlier in the topic, as did others, and you did not answer most of them and the ones you did answer were quickly and thoroughly refuted. Answer all of the questions you just proposed, or retract them, as you do not answer them and dance around or ignore our questions.


Yes, energy is lost into the abyss; it's called entropy. Entropy does not destroy or decay energy, it merely reaches a state of equilibrium. The energy you and I use is energy that has not reached equilibrium. When energy has reached equilibrium, it can not be used without freeing it with an input of energy of fundamental forces. 99% of the Universe's matter was transformed into energy during the Big Bang, and 99% of the Universe's energy is unusable.

There may have been an original Big Bang(it's highly probable), but quantum physics allows for such an event to occur; time reaching infinity in both directions is allowed by mathematics/science.


Gravity is primarily a macro force; it has almost no effect at atomic levels, where the other three fundamental forces reign dominant. It boggles scientists because they are currently unsure at how it ties together at a quantum level and what precisely causes gravity.

Then why did you bring it up? Dimensions 5-11 are considered string theory and if they do exsist, may be wound up in an incredibly tiny space; this is irrelevant to the prevailing topic...

The Big Bang does suffice. Do you know how much energy is in a singularity? Matter can not be created or destroyed; the universe would have the exact same amount of energy/matter if you gathered everything in it and brought it together again. Why? Because of that little thing we discussed earlier: entropy. You misinterpret the laws of thermodynamics. The system will decay over time, but that is because energy is becoming unusable, not destroyed.


You totally missed the fucking point, again.

Our matter had an origin: the big bang. Yes, the Earth's energy is staying relatively the same over its history. Why? Because the sun is giving the Earth *gasp*!: energy! Energy is released as heat, which we feel on every sunny day. Hiroshima is one of many possible instances to release energy, it also happens to take a heavy toll on the matter around it. The sunburn you receive is energy from the sun *gasp again!*, in the form of UV radiation, damaging your cells. You know what this UV radiation can do if it damages your cell enough? Caner. Do you know what cancer is? A mutation of the cell regulation cycle during mitosis, causing it to grow uncontrollably. You do not need chlorophyll to harness heat or energy, look at those sea creatures huddled around volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean, with no sunlight. Chlorophyll arose from millions, if not billions of years of fine tuning and adaptation.


The Big Bang's original energy was a soup of quarks and eventually coalesced into protons, neutrons, and electrons, which eventually formed atoms when the heat fell enough. Why did it form plasma? Because the Big Bang was HOT. The Big Bang created mostly Hydrogen, amounts of Helium(from occasional nuclear fusion when the particles in a super condensed universe tried to go somewhere, and a trace amount of Lithium(more fusion byproducts). Yes, it is impossible to get past iron with fusion. You know how we overcome that? SUPERNOVAE. Supernovae create temperatures and pressures high enough to produce heavy elements; all of the iron and heavier elements in your body are the result of a supernova.

That's because there is, and you still have not helped your argument at all, only digging yourself an even deeper hole.


What created God? Why does he exsist? There was a before Earth, there was at least 8 billion years of a before Earth.

If you're going to use your magical sky wizard as an argument factor, please offer some heavy proof and stop relying on faith and logical fallacies.

Me or.. idk

Magical Sky Wizard is exactly what God is but it is almost unexplainable. I guarentee if youw alk up to a heavy christian and ask these questions they will go ape on you. Make sure you have a cross, red wine, holy water, and a bible or you are SCREWED lol.

i.e., "God is infinite and therefore needs no further defense in any matter." Unfortunately, assumption of the possibility of an "infinite being" allows for the potential of infinite different possible variations of him, and how he rules the universe. None are in any way more defendable than any other, as any possible infinite God can make any other one, or none at all, seem to be the "real" one, to an absolute degree of certainty.
"always destructive"? lolno. You admit that chlorophyll can utilize the energy ( for that matter, melanin, which is what gives human skin its brown color, absorbs UV radiation for various purposes ) , so "always" is definitively out. The Earth does not "upgrade", it changes. It is like any large, complex system in which you throw various factors and watch as they cascade various effects, because it is one. Energy is not composed of a group of tiny little particles giggling as they run around smacking atoms around and breaking things; "destruction" is a purely artificial concept that, as you're using it, has no bearing on a system seen from a purely mechanical perspective. Though the more chaotic a system is, the more difficult/less likely it is for such self-repeating patterns as the original organic molecules to occur and not be eliminated, time also increases chance - and the Earth, for its millions of years, has been generally much less chaotic and much more long-lived than the conditions inside a nuclear explosion.