Login

Join for Free!
116819 members


Big bang and Evoluion

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:28 pm

Ok, the big bang theory and evolution to me hold no ground. I had this same dissucion in class the other day, and the fact that an big explosion is the reason for life as we know it makes utterly no sence to me. I mean how can and explosion create life and not destroy. I look at it this way, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. newton law of physics discredits the big band theory.. :D
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Postby david23 » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:34 pm

Newton's law has very little to do here. Actually forget newton's law period when we discuss big bang here.

The big bang is the spreading out of energy in the beginning, before the universe existed. There is nothing to be destroyed, because there was no matter

And evolution doesnt even take place until the formation planets and a stable environment existed for the life to beging.
david23
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:19 am

OK, so let's just go by what you said.. if there was nothing how can something forum out of nothing.. as far as evolution, weather it took place right there and then or a-ways down the time line, doesn't change the fact that there was nothing to evolve in the first place.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm


Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby kk23wong » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:50 pm

“Big Bang” is a theory illustrating the beginning of our universe. Everything based on assumption without scientific proofs. By the way, nobody can “observe” the origin after its formation for centuries.

“Evolution” is incomplete. The failure to notice the Earth as a conscious living object has turned our scientists into the wrong directions.

Below is my latest findings.

1. Microorganisms are equivalent to “our body cells” in the Earth. Microorganisms evolved into animals. Thus, the evolution of animals is also the life cycles of the Earth. In the meantime, “animals” are offspring of the Earth. Hence, the evolution of animals is also the evolution of the planet. Activities of the animals are also the life cycles of the Earth.

2. Some of the microorganisms remain as the “body cells” of the Earth. They diversified into plants. The diversifications of plants are the “evolution” of the Earth herself*.
(*From biological prospective, the Earth is our mother-in-common and a higher form of lives.)

3. Both the diversification of “plants” and the evolution of “animals” are the process of growth of the Earth.

4. The control experiments are the planets* nearby. (*They are being classified as planets according to our modern technology. They may not be the real case because of the rigidity of technology.) When their life cycles come to an end, no living organisms (including microorganisms) exist. The regeneration of a planet cannot be infinite.

5. The evolution of the planet (as stated above) and the activities of the offspring (included in her life cycles) marked the higher form of lives as the planets. The indivisibility in-between the planet and the animals (including humankind) physically is solid.

6. The life cycles of the planets will eventually come to an end. It satisfies the biological principles of aging. Although the existence of the planets are in a higher level, they cannot escape the fates from death.

7. My hypothesis “Planets are living things” explained the absence of space arrivals and the absences of lives in the planets nearby. The planets are conscious living objects in a higher level. The end of their live cycles (over-exploitations of their resources and the unrecoverable damages by activities of offspring - animals) will be resulted in the EXTINCTION of all species inside*. (*Due to the distances and the time differences of the life periods of various planets, space migrations are impossible. Spaceships without sufficient supplies of resources cannot make their journeys to the another closest living planet. At the same time, these planets which still alive are conscious.) As a result, the Earth has no space visitors. Planets nearby have their life cycles end.

I am still working on it. Scientists have too much imagination. Please look at the sky through telescopes and think in the base as the Earth as a conscious living object. Space stations are coffins without enough supplies of resources. You are not going to migrate to other planets if their life cycles have come to an end.

Reason 1. Life cycles of the planets nearby have come to an end. The civilizations (which were there once) are not going to survive because of the differences in time of the life cycles of the planets. The evidences cannot be tracked because of the decays caused by time. The rapid development of civilizations (activities of the offspring -animals- of the planets) will definitely shortened the life span of the planets. That is similar to the situation on the Earth nowadays. Meanwhile, resources of these planets may have been used up by the civilizations. It does not necessarily means that there are no minerals, but it will be hard for search and explore.

Reason 2. The end of the life cycles marked the absence of living organisms. These living organisms are going to multiple and evolve if the environment is suitable. However, a closed environment like greenhouses will not recover the entire life cycles of a planet. Thus, the space migrations into other “dead” planets are not going to work. Several constraints come here: 1. Air pressure; 2. gravity; 3. Suitable environment and temperature for living organisms (from the Earth); 4. How to carry living organisms (from the Earth); 5. Recycle/Find alternate sources of resources. You cannot recover the life cycles of planets after they are dead. Living organisms are not likely to be “transplanted” into any “dead’ planet. I am not 100% sure here, but it is not seemingly to work. Life cycles of the planets cannot be reverted. Instead, we can slow down the process of aging. Reason 2 still need further investigation.

Teru Wong
Use Smartphone to Find More Information On My Image
User avatar
kk23wong
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:53 pm
Location: Hong Kong, CN

Re: Big bang and Evoluion

Postby Jamal » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:25 pm

OK I agree somewhat, but the fact remains that the so called "big bang" and evolution hold no ground especilly with scientist say that the earth is millions of years old when scientific evidence shows that things we assume take “millions of years” to happen actually don't take that long at all, and scientific evidence actually points to a young Earth that's about 6000 years old, which would support the interpretation of 6 literal 24 hour days of the Genesis Creation as recorded in the Bible.
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Postby canalon » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:16 am

Obviously we do not have the same sources of scientific evidences... The institute for creation research is to science what play-dough is to cooking.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby mith » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:28 pm

Who wrote the bible? I'd like to see his sources.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Jamal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:03 pm

Wow, so what your basically implying is that science cant be wrong, and as far as the bible we are the sources
Science has made us GODS even before we are worthy of being men. ~Jean Rostand
Jamal
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:36 pm

Postby canalon » Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:28 am

No, scientist can be wrong. This happens regularly, but the difference is that if i want to defend a scientific idea, I will give a theoritical frame (quantum physics, general relativity, evolution, whatever suits the demonstration) expose a logical conclusion and what predictions can be made or observed in the real wold, and check if I can actually do those observations. if yes, My theory is solid, if not it needs improvement. The sources we are asking are how our model of creation can be logically defended, how it fits with the rest of science, what did it say about our world, and what testable predictions can be derived from your model.

Should I point ow the obvious lack of all interesting predictions that can be derived from the bible? and the fact that predictions coming from very different fields like biology, physics are actually fitting with the current old earth model? And it says so in the book is not enough to be convincing, considering the number of books that claim to have the divine explanation on the creation of the world, yet are completely discrepant. Why should christians be believed, not muslims or hindus or...?
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Sophyclese » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:57 pm

I must say that evolution and the big bang theory are both theories and have many theories that fall under their umbrella. All of said theories are false. THere is no
COMPLETE, SOLID EVIDENCE supporting evolution, the big bang theory, and all theories encompassed by both.

Furthur more, all evidence said to prove evolution can be disprooved by the simple rules that define what is possible in this universe.
If you have further questions, please search for profile/send a message to Sophyclese.
User avatar
Sophyclese
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:13 pm

Postby mith » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:24 am

clearly you don't understand the definition of theory if you think they're all false.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby MrMistery » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:28 am

I moved this to evolution, although i would have preferred to move it to oblivion...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron