Young Earth / Big Bang

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Lovecraft, Nov 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    I'm just wondering how many of the forum members here are potentially Young Earthers (Whether it's Young Earth CREATIONISM I don't really care right now, the evolution/creationism debate is still relevant but I think most people are bored of them by now.)

    Do tell if you accept the current model of the Big Bang having occurred roughly 15 billion years ago, and if not what you do think.
     
  2. Young suicider

    Young suicider Well-Known Member

    Scientist are so pointless sometimes.lol

    Whoever came up with the big bang theory had way to much friggen time on their hands. :p

    I mean talk about Future and the near past 10,000 years or so,but 15bil?
     
  3. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    This man did, and he did it because it was his job to be an astronomer.

     
  4. nolonger

    nolonger Well-Known Member

    I've grown up knowing about all the dinosaurs 65 million years ago and the whole big bang thing. Far as I'm concerned it's true. My family isn't religous and we think it's funny someone can believe that the earth/universe is something like 6000 years old when we have civilisations that date back twice as long...

    I'm not all to familiar with the exact events/timeline of the big bang, most of the stuff I learn about space is off the discovery(or national geographic) channel because they don't bother teaching HEAPS of it in school due to kids not really caring/having much of an attention span, :laugh:.
     
  5. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

  6. 2-D

    2-D Well-Known Member

    interesting question, I have often wondered if this is the first 'earth' or the 7th - would be interesting to think that maybe so many billions of years ago there was another version of us disscussing this same thing, and will happen again...and again as if we are stuck on a 15 billion year reset untill something specific happens and the human race gets things right?

    p.s: hi lollipop, im in chat if u wanna talk :D
     
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    What drives me nuts is that if you take a non-literal interpretation of time in the Old Testament it works just fine with modern scientific theory. Big Bang = first day of creation ("Let there be light at a single point with a ridiculous amount of energy!"), and God takes 13.7 billion years to create man instead of 6 days, why not?

    Anyhow, I have no doubt whatsoever that the universe is 13.7+-a few billion years old, and am not too concerned about whether or not God(s) was involved in its creation.
     
  8. nolonger

    nolonger Well-Known Member

    Well there's been several Ice Ages, so for all we know, the exact same thing could reoccur after each consecutive ice-over....*massive gasp*!

    :laugh:
     
  9. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    im gonig to do something i dont normally like to do here, im going to link people to other pages :O

    evolution itself destroys the 10,000 year old earth theory
    so.......
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...00-million-years-evolution-male-pill-science/

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

    This one because i also like to give the veggies food for thought :D

    www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908

    evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
     
  10. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I believe in the big bang theory, and as agnostic I don't rule out there being some greater force behind it, though I abide only by what evidence has shown so far (which leans to "God" or some other great force not necessarily being a pertinent factor).
     
  11. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    Up to about 16 or 17 I believed the earth was 6000 years old or something similar. I did the evolution things in class but just assumed it was arrogant scientists and I needed to do it to pass the class. I thought they were blinded by the devil just like secular people were. I read books that said we found dinosaurs and evidence of a young earth.

    I grew out of it. No longer a christian. My parents still believe the earth is 6000 years old. Hurts to say it because i love them so much. How can someone go through so much life and think things like that? At the same time, I wish there WAS an afterlife because it breaks me up inside seeing all these people I care about dying and all of the people I admired that're now dead. Even if that meant the christian bible being RIGHT and me going to hell. I just hate it that people vanish from space/time when they die. That's cruel and heartless and hard for my emotional mind to understand. Is it cruel for me to say that part of me wishes my parents are right so that at least there's an afterlife and people don't disappear forever when they die? I don't WANT people to go to hell (whatever that is). I hate seeing death. A BIGGER part of me wishes that there's some kind of after life (not christian-based). One that's unconditional and doesn't apply only to humans. One that's somehow based on science. That would be nice, but maybe we will only find out after we die.

    I believe science is mostly right about things, but not even close to perfect. When you look through history science was wrong about a lot of things. Not even close to 99% right (compared to modern science). I doubt we suddenly became 'enlightened' and are now nearly 100% right. (Reading some science books you would think that scientists think we're 99.99999999999% right.) They have admitted that since most of the universe is dark matter/energy then we don't understand most of it (on the order of over 90% of it). However, they say this tongue in cheek. They don't REALLY mean that science is only 6% right (or so), they just say that for effect. What they really mean is something like: "Current science explains about 6% of the universe, but we have a good idea what the other 94% might be and we already have a firm understanding of the overall character of the universe so it doesn't matter that we can't see 94% of it." Another words, even though they can't see 94% of it, they don't think it has any significant bearing on their big theories (like special relativity).

    I think scientists, like any other work force, are egotistical. I don't throw the books into the wind like I did when I was a young boy/man, but I don't accept science with blind faith, either. So my feeling is that we're mostly right, but 200 years from now scientists will shake their heads when they review science as it was in 2010. It's based on history. I'm just looking at our past and seeing a pattern, and projecting this pattern into the distant future. So I predict they'll be wrong about many things as they were in the past.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2010
  12. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Any decent scientist knows that science is incomplete by its nature - science posits that it can never know anything. A scientist that says 'we know' is either being too simplistic to the audience or is a bad scientist.

    Things like Newtonian mechanics are *technically* incorrect - special relativity produces more accurate results by a decent amount but Newtonian mechanics is accurate enough to get rockets to the moon even if it is a bit imprecise so it's still a scientific concept kept around.

    If you really want a world where *everything* is proven absolutely you need to go into mathematics.
     
  13. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    Some quotes from einstein about meat eating:

    "So I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore."

    "I have always eaten animal flesh with a somewhat guilty conscience."

    Einstein reportedly was a vegetarian his last year of life. So for anyone who feels guilty when they eat meat or an animal-based product, you're not alone! Einstein also felt that way!

    There're a number of famous people and athletes that're vegetarians. While they may have been healthier or would be healthier if they adopted a diet with some b12 and small amounts of fish/animal fat, there's no disputing that some vegetarians have lived long lives. Maybe they just did a lot of OTHER things right in their life. Nothing rules out this lifestyle choices, but it's very dangerous for someone who does not educate themselves about the risks and doesn't know how to compensate well enough in other areas of their life.

    Something you missed is breast milk. Giving a child breast milk is not vegetarian at all. Yet, without breast milk you're not nourishing your baby properly. On the other hand, milk from a cow does NOT give the same effect in children. It must be human breast milk.

    Meat (as we know it) is on the way out bro. We're moving towards a green economy. Your beef burger and chicken sandwich and pork sausage and eggs is going to be a thing of the past. While I support b12 supplements and small servings of fish (or just grow some fruit/veggies without using pesticides and don't wash them so you eat the organisms on the surface for b12). People need to eat LESS meat, not MORE. We're eating too much. And soon we will grow meat in factories using cell cultures and fabrication technologies (that grow it and give it texture). NO animals will be used. It will be the ultimate humane method of producing meat and I 100% support it.

    When you look at health statistics, it's not meat people are missing, it's fruits/veggies and exercise and non-stressful circumstances.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2010
  14. johnnysays

    johnnysays Well-Known Member

    They can spot inertia, but they don't know what it's for sure. They have the math, but they can't say exactly how. It's like gravity. We know the acceleration and we know it so well we can visit other planets using strict mathematics based on our understanding of gravity. There's no human on planet earth that could steer a spacecraft by hand to another planet. It requires a computer because it must be HIGH precision. But we still don't know exactly what gravity is. We just know how it behaves. We know there can't be anti-gravity according to modern theories. However, modern theory allows for anti-gravity-like things. For example, I read recently an article about research that might one day lead to objects that can levitate. However, they don't levitate because it's anti-gravity. They levitate because of something that opposes the force (like the thrust of a rocket that opposes the force of gravity).

    Here is an example link of pseudo-anti-gravity science (it's NOT anti-gravity!):
    Physicists have 'solved' mystery of levitation

    (btw, the image they have linked at the top is just a junk image, it's not the actual effect they're talking about in the article)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2010
  15. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    All of which is totally irrelevant to the idea that it was due to eating meat that our brains developed the way they did.

    Meat eating is not on its way out, hunting is growing daily and many more people are now learning to catch their own food. Eating food you have caught yourself will never cease to be, it is part of our nature (however much people deny this)

    Also appealing to the authority of einstein does not make any case for vegetarianism, it simply points out his preferences.

    also animals are killed to stop damage to crops, what should we do, just throw the carcasses in a hedge? i think not, if i kill something i make sure it goes to full use. no point in needlessly wasting life.

    You'll also find different meats have different properties, we may be told to reduce in the most commonly available meats but this does not by any means reduce all meats.

    At the end if it, this is not a thread for debating diets, so i shall say no more on it, if you wish to create a thread on the subject feel free but this isnt the place
     
  16. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    Question.

    Has a reptile been observed in the act of transformation (from one to the other) or has it just been discovered that there are types of reptile that lay eggs and types of reptile that give birth to live young? If the latter, then this is not evidence of 'evolution in action' as the story falsely asserts.


    Your 'food for thought' link comes up with 'page not found' when I click on it. Does this happen for anyone else? Would you like to tell us what it says?
     
  17. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    if you think back to what you learned about evolution you would remember individuals do not "transform", rather during reproduction mutations occurr.
    What they found was the same species of reptile laying eggs in one area and the same species that have started to use live birth in other areas.
    Bearing in mind they are the same species this is very much watching evolution in action.
     
  18. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    Sorry, I should have worded that better. What I meant was, have the reptiles actually been observed changing from one variety, i.e. egg-laying, to another, i.e. 'live-birth', as it has been dubbed? Or, have they simply found a group of the same species living in an isolated location which could be doing what they have always done?

    In reality, it appears that they are giving birth to embryo's with thinner egg covering's around them having kept the embryo inside themselves for a longer period of time. Hardly the same thing as the live-birth which characterises the vast majority of mammalian species.

    I take it you couldnt find the article that you wanted veggies to read?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2010
  19. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

  20. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member


    The only useful information provided in that article is that our teeth and other anatomy/physiology do not resemble a biological flesh-eater's in any way.

    The reason for this is most probably the fact that we are frugivores.

    The author instead invents a silly argument about them changing over time since the invention of tools and cooking. If they were already pre-adapted for eating the foods that we can consume post tool use then there would have been no need to invent tools and cooking in the first place! Clearly they were not.

    There is no dietary-driven evolution anyway, as you know. You stated as much in your previous post when you claimed that 'mutations occur'. If evolution happens at all it does so because of random mutations of the sexual genetic material. No changes to the individual, either caused by changes in nutrition, or other habit, can be passed on to one's offspring.

    It would make more sense to eat fruit if one wanted to provide the brain with energy. It uses blood sugar, which is more readily derivable from fruit-sugar than it is from anything found in meat, which is itself largely devoid of any form of carbohydrate, except for a tiny amount of glycogen. It is not an economical process converting fat or protein into blood-sugar.

    Seems strange that one of the major protagonists of these daft theories about the non-existent benefits of meat consumption, Richard Wrangham, is himself a vegetarian! Why?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.