Evolution vs. Creation

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Ack! Excuse the slip! Thanks for the soft touch on the correction. And yes, the methane could be just an expression of naturally forming gas, no life is necessary for that.

But is a indicator of possible carbon based life as nearly all life on earth including micro organisms produce methane gas in decomposing biological matter.

Mexi Melt wrote:

Xcuse my beauty!

Why? What did she do?

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Drew, I plainly don't respond to broken posts, on any topic whatsoever. Now you are being dishonest, and uncivil. Yes, I DO GET TO DICTATE HOW YOU REPLY TO ME. If you do not comply, I will never comply with you. You may, of course, do the same.
You method is unnecessary, and often too abused on forums to take points out of context. I choose not to accept such a dialogue. This will be your last warning.

Tell Drew you can't answer scientific questions because ..well that's cheating to expect you to play by the rules.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> But is a indicator of possible carbon based life as nearly all life on earth including micro organisms produce methane gas in decomposing biological matter.

No chit?!!!

Hahahahahhaaa!

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Yes the topix theist will stop at nothing in effort to inject science with their philosophy.

Yes the topix atheist will stop at nothing in effort to inject science with their philosophy ... in this case secular humanism.

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you agree that there was once a time in Earth's history when there was no life at all?

Sure. Drew's a remnant of an echo of "non-life".

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Tell Drew you can't answer scientific questions because ..well that's cheating to expect you to play by the rules.

Why would I do that? His butchering of posts has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

We should all play by the rules. Science demands it. But evolutionists are not doing that, at all.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
That is correct. It was Christians and others that came up with the foundation of evolution before Darwin.
But there has always been problems with evolution as a theory, problems that, without all the ideological and political corruption, would have passed into obscurity with all bad theories.
The Big Bang theory, for example, is far from secure, just as many theories.
To deny this, is to do a grave disservice to science. Stop it.

How is the Big Bang in any sort of trouble at all? There may be some debate about what caused the expansion, not really a bang by the way, but the fact that the universe as we know it started from a very small point is almost universally (no pun intended) accepted.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
Not True....There Are A Growing Number Of Scientist Who Believe In A Creator.
Like Hollywood, They Dont Like To Say It Too Loud.

Is this...

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christia... ;

...what you were thinking of?

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
How is the Big Bang in any sort of trouble at all? There may be some debate about what caused the expansion, not really a bang by the way, but the fact that the universe as we know it started from a very small point is almost universally (no pun intended) accepted.

http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/2/post/2011/...

Just because something is universally accepted does not make it factual.

Theories have always come and gone, and always will has we learn more.

THE SPREE OF OBAMA'S DOING IS JUST SO CRAZY AND EXTREME BECAUSE HE IS THE BIGGEST EXTREMIST OF ALL TIME.

The craving for taking credit may even arise to the stand that Obama would boast he commanded the USA Olympic athletes to win A LOT OF MEDALS--JUST AS HE said he did command the getting of bin Laden BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

=====

Many things are not true from what Obama says.

Obama would take credit that US won a lot of medals by having USA Olympic uniforms made in China.

Yet, concerning just less that some hundreds to a maximum of a few thousand people's Olympic uniforms as not masses (masses=lots of lots population), they are such costs considered tiny and minimal in a big country.

However,when Obama knows to wind up escalating trillions of debt, the costs of uniforms amount to nothing much as the unnoticeable, very small decimal ratio of any spending , compared to the huge national debts Obama has accumulated. This is radically illogical , due to the pathetic thinking of Obama and company.

Winning medals would have been done by US sportsmen-but not by Obama (being not a sportsman), yet would be taken by claiming credits by Obama. Also winning medals has nothing to do with where uniform clothing were made, that Obama would even claim credit because uniforms were outsourced--as made in China. It is ridiculous for outsourcing to make uniform clothing to win medals, which is done by Obama --but there is no such logical real equivalent that outsourcing uniforms is equal to winning medals.

Furthermore, the craving for taking credit may even arise to the stand that Obama would boast he commanded the USA Olympic athletes to win A LOT OF MEDALS--JUST AS HE said he did command the getting of bin Laden BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

THIS DRAWS the same thing if any Getting bin Laden did ever happen, it was not done by Obama.
Yet Obama would boast it to his credit.
But the paradox is that he could not show clarity of all details , and description of such a happening,in addition to releasing pictures.

Obama is no question unbelievable as the biggest fake and baloney.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/2/post/2011/...
Just because something is universally accepted does not make it factual.
Theories have always come and gone, and always will has we learn more.

Except you said that there is trouble with the Big Band. One lone unsupported scientist does not make any trouble for a theory. Yes, she could be right. It is very dubious. She needs to explain why the universe can be observed to be expanding. That the expansion is incredibly uniform and can be traced back to a point in time roughly 13 billion years ago. Those are some pretty big hurdles to clear.

By the way you should check out "A universe from nothing." on YouTube where a respected physicist who I cannot remember at this late hour shows how in a flat universe, which ours appears to be, that the total energy of the universe is zero and its appearance does not break the laws of conservation of energy. In other words it is nothing from nothing. I won't defend the math, I am not afraid to admit it is beyond me.

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
How is the Big Bang in any sort of trouble at all? There may be some debate about what caused the expansion, not really a bang by the way, but the fact that the universe as we know it started from a very small point is almost universally (no pun intended) accepted.

He thinks someone had to light the fuse to get a big bang.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.apparentlyapparel.com/2/post/2011/...
Just because something is universally accepted does not make it factual.
Theories have always come and gone, and always will has we learn more.

Now who is it injecting their philosophy again?
As matter of a fact all the science questions asked you answer with your philosophy and no science.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> He thinks someone had to light the fuse to get a big bang.

Do I detect hostility, Aura? Sad. There really is no place in a dialogue for this kind of posting.

Yankee Yahoo, yes, some people will interpret the available data differently. The problem for creationists is that their interpretations can be tested. There is not one of their claims for a young Earth that have not failed when their prediction is analyzed with all of the data. If you look at only part of the data you can get a false idea, like in the story of the five blind men and the elephant. The failure of the creationists models is just like the failure of the blind men.

JBH wrote:

THE SPREE OF OBAMA'S DOING IS JUST SO CRAZY AND EXTREME BECAUSE HE IS THE BIGGEST EXTREMIST OF ALL TIME.
The craving for taking credit may even arise to the stand that Obama would boast he commanded the USA Olympic athletes to win A LOT OF MEDALS--JUST AS HE said he did command the getting of bin Laden BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
=====
Many things are not true from what Obama says.
Obama would take credit that US won a lot of medals by having USA Olympic uniforms made in China.
Yet, concerning just less that some hundreds to a maximum of a few thousand people's Olympic uniforms as not masses (masses=lots of lots population), they are such costs considered tiny and minimal in a big country.
However,when Obama knows to wind up escalating trillions of debt, the costs of uniforms amount to nothing much as the unnoticeable, very small decimal ratio of any spending , compared to the huge national debts Obama has accumulated. This is radically illogical , due to the pathetic thinking of Obama and company.
Winning medals would have been done by US sportsmen-but not by Obama (being not a sportsman), yet would be taken by claiming credits by Obama. Also winning medals has nothing to do with where uniform clothing were made, that Obama would even claim credit because uniforms were outsourced--as made in China. It is ridiculous for outsourcing to make uniform clothing to win medals, which is done by Obama --but there is no such logical real equivalent that outsourcing uniforms is equal to winning medals.
Furthermore, the craving for taking credit may even arise to the stand that Obama would boast he commanded the USA Olympic athletes to win A LOT OF MEDALS--JUST AS HE said he did command the getting of bin Laden BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
THIS DRAWS the same thing if any Getting bin Laden did ever happen, it was not done by Obama.
Yet Obama would boast it to his credit.
But the paradox is that he could not show clarity of all details , and description of such a happening,in addition to releasing pictures.
Obama is no question unbelievable as the biggest fake and baloney.

You do realize that you are crazy don't you?

You are also in the wrong forum...go away

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes the topix atheist will stop at nothing in effort to inject science with their philosophy ... in this case secular humanism.

There are still scientists who exhibit a sense of wonder that we have the "convenient" ability, or "gift" as it's described below, of defining the cosmos mathematically.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable... ;

Notice the choice of words like "miracle", "faith", and "belief". It's common for the mysterious to invoke suspicions that it may come from uncanny origins.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Do I detect hostility, Aura? Sad. There really is no place in a dialogue for this kind of posting.

Right , exactly what do you find hostile about that statement?

Here you go Yankee Yahoo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

"A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.