Creation over Evolution

[Prometheus]

where's the effort in finding noah's ark? surely the bible states the final resting place for the animals have to have disembarked the vessel somewhere. but thats not the point, the point is making a real effort to prove to everyone that their theory has a valid claim and not just sprouting words of wisdom to brainwash people and make it seem like you talking sense.

Seems you missed this post:

Found a link...
Noah's Ark Search
Don't have time to look through everything though.

But then again all creationist's efforts are overlooked and people only see the evolutionist's efforts...

components within your computer use quantum theory, does that mean you dont believe in science when the fact that the computer works is right in front of your eyes?

Actually quantum physics is hindering the working of your computer, since it makes it unreliable, which is why Intel cannot seem to reach 5Ghz on their Pentium chips.

 

[Prometheus]

Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures? That has to be the most astoundingly stupid thing I've ever read on these forums.

So we are in agreement that this sounds stupid. Since afaik this is the only theory there is on how life started. A lightning bolt supposedly hit a cloud of carbon, therby giving it a structure that allowed it to replicate itself and charge over the generations. Glad we can agree that the basis for evolution sounds astoundingly stupid.

 

[kilo39]

Just came across this - latest news:

Fossil Find Is Missing Link in Human Evolution, Scientists Say
John Roach
for National Geographic News

April 13, 2006
When the famous skeleton of an early human ancestor known as Lucy was discovered in Africa in the 1970s, scientists asked: Where did she come from?

Now, fossils found in the same region are providing solid answers, researchers have announced.

 

[Rkootknir]

So we are in agreement that this sounds stupid. Since afaik this is the only theory there is on how life started. A lightning bolt supposedly hit a cloud of carbon, therby giving it a structure that allowed it to replicate itself and charge over the generations. Glad we can agree that the basis for evolution sounds astoundingly stupid.

Unfortunately for you, I actually know the TOE. It says no such thing. Only someone who doesn't have any conception of science can express such utter drivel.

I take exception to being compared to a creationist, as insults go it's just about the worst.

 

[supersunbird]

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.

Creationists claim to know without a doubt.

Does it (Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures - its called chemistry) sound any worse than floating energy ball with sentience creating stuff?

Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, birds) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)

 

[Rkootknir]

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.

I don't think an evolutionary biologist would have anything to say about the THSK. You probably mean theoretical physicist.

Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, bird) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)

It's called unnatural selection

 

[mooK]

Supersunbird, there always were different strains of particular species of animals, we simply cross-bred certain types to get a more specific kind of animal to suit our needs, like a terrier or whatever.

The same way people created new races when they bred with people from different parts of the world. Pretty simple, no?

PS: Rkootknir, you're mah hero!

 

[supersunbird]

About

A evolutionist would be stupid to say there was nothing before the big bang, best they can do is theorise but no one knows, what we do know is that other stars are moving away from us and each other.

Creationists claim to know without a doubt.

True, but prometheus jams it all together, so I just jammed it all together so he can grasp it.

Does it (Dirt+Water+Time=Living creatures - its called chemistry) sound any worse than floating energy ball with sentience creating stuff?

Someone still has to explain away that we (us humans) can change animals (dogs, cats, birds) over short timespans to look almost completely like different species (Great Dane vs Yorkshire Terrier)

This is aimed at the creationists too...

 

[mooK]

To discuss evolution and the creation of the universe in such simple terms is counter-productive. In order for the scientific theories to make sense, they have to be studied in their entirety, and one has to have a comfortable grasp of general science theory.

Without this knowledge you're arguing against something you don't fully understand.

No disrespect intended, I'm far from being a scientist myself!

 

[Prometheus]

The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.

Wikipedia:
"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."
"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Know your own science before trying to convince me of mine.

 

[mooK]

Promotheus, if you make any point in your post, I fail to see it, please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particles

 

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately for you, I actually know the TOE. It says no such thing. Only someone who doesn't have any conception of science can express such utter drivel.

Since this is a scientific theory I'll assume your comment means you agree with me that scientists "doesn't have any conception of science"

 

[Prometheus]

Promotheus, if you make any point in your post, I fail to see it, please explain.

I told you what a neutron consists of, Rkootknir told me i'm wrong, I proved I'm right. Point made. Can't you understand this?

 

[mooK]

No, I don't. You quoted Rkootknir:

"The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms."

Then you proceed to quote something from wikipedia about neutrons, not neutrinos.

"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything Rkootknir said. Then you quote:

"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"

Now this statement isn't even a fact, it is stated that 'it is still possible...' And it has no bearing on what was discussed before, needless to say... WTF?!?!

Hopefully now you can understand my confusion as nothing you said has anything to do with the statement you quoted Rkootknir on.

EDIT: Also, when did you mention anything about what neutrons consist of? Try reading the whole article instead of skimming through the first paragraph.

 

[Prometheus]

EDIT: Also, when did you mention anything about what neutrons consist of?

I can understand now that you might be confused mooK
Post #57

I believe in every science that has been proven. It's a fact that atoms consist of electrons, protons, and neutrons and that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino.

Post #59

You're profound lack of understanding seems to continue in physics as well. Neutrons consist of 2 down quarks and an up quark. Protons consist of 2 up quarks and a down quark. The neutrino is an elementary particle (as far as science knows ATM) and is not a part of the structure of atoms.

Post #70

Wikipedia:
"Outside the nucleus, neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 886 seconds (about 15 minutes, uncertainty about 2 s, decaying by emitting an electron and antineutrino to become a proton."
"Despite their massive nature, it is still possible that the neutrino and antineutrino are in fact the same particle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Know your own science before trying to convince me of mine.

As you can see I was trying to make the point that I know a lot about science and that I'm not so clueless as some of these people want you to belief. All they seem to do however is to show that they indeed know less.

ps. As for the neutrino-antineutrino difference - my first source was the Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 which states a neutron as consisting of a proton, electron and a neutrino, not an antineutrino.

 

[Rkootknir]

I told you what a neutron consists of, Rkootknir told me i'm wrong, I proved I'm right. Point made. Can't you understand this?

What are you on about? A neutron is the electro-neutral particle that is found in the nucleus of an atom. It is made up of two down quarks and one up quark. It decays into a proton by emitting an electron and an antineutrino when not in the nucleus.

A neutrino is an electro-neutral particle that is not found in an atom, in general it just passes through anything without disturbing it.

You are just plain wrong when you state "that neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino". This is untrue. Try to read the Wikipedia entries before you go off sprouting nonsense.

[edit]
Jeez, just saw your above post. You seem to be unable to follow logic. You just disproved your own statement. "Neutrons consist of a proton, an electron and a neutrino" my a*s. Wherever you get this from, it's bloody hilarious.

 

[w1z4rd]

since we are basicaly an advanced type of bacteria colony, that has learnt to adapt to its environment.

I believe in evolution and creation, as they are the same thing, just percieved on different timelines Theories like the M-Theory+String Theory make me honest believe in a grand design and creationism. However, I completely believe in evolution, and anyone who does not comprehend evolution should have a chat to the dodo, it was just as thick.

Evolution is real, wether the religions like it or not.

Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church).

Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

 

[Rkootknir]

ps. As for the neutrino-antineutrino difference - my first source was the Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 which states a neutron as consisting of a proton, electron and a neutrino, not an antineutrino.

It does no such thing. Britannica clearly states that a neutron consists of two down quarks and one up quark. Outside of the nucleus it decays into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

You seem to be confusing the "consist of" part with the decay sequence.

[edit]
For the above decay sequence, the following takes place: By the workings of weak interaction one of the down quarks in the neutron changes into an up quark (this produces the proton) by emitting a W boson. The W boson then breaks up into a high energy electron and an antineutrino. High energy electrons are more commonly called beta radiation, which is why this decay sequence is known as beta decay.

 

[Prometheus]

Ok, sorry for this misunderstanding.
Just installed Britannica and got this...
"the neutron appears to consist of three quarks"
"It can break down into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino"
Giving the impression that it consists of a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. I realised the part about the down quark changing into an up quark. One can however also argue that both down quarks change into up quarks and the up quark changing to a down quark if this has not been disproven. Thanks for your insight.

And in case you're wondering, yes I do question the bible in exactly the same way. Why? Because God Himself tells us to do so. It's not a question of having blind faith. That's why he gave the Egyptians 10 signs of his might and the Israelites numerous other signs.

 

[kilo39]

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
-
A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

national geographic