Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

It is illogical to think that Eve could pump out enough kids to bring the world's population to what what it is today in 6,000 years. She would have had to be pregnant her entire life. Assuming she lived to be 900+ years old like Adam, with a 9 month gestation, she would only have had 1,200 kids, unless she dropped 50-100 kids at a time. Either that or she gave birth immediately after getting screwed by Adam.
How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old..... seems Adam and Eve wasted a bit of time between kids.... they had a world to populate!
Then you have to take menopause into account. Exactly how many fertile years did Eve have?
Oh and all the while, she was birthing Asians and Africans too?
When did she have time to raise the kids? The poor woman must have been pooped.

Compared to macro-evolution, the Adam and Eve story is completely implausible.

Seems to me Moses and the other contributors to the bible were using Adam and Eve as a metaphor for the entire human race and over time everyone started taking everything literally.

So you think it is illogical that the population of humans were only at 200 million just 2,000 years ago now it's at 8 billion ? so it it went from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.

Explain by those numbers how it is illogical ?

You mean 7 billion:

World population hits 7 billion

If Eve birthed one kid every nine months, that's only 1200 kids for the first 900 years. But that's incorrect anyway. Adam was 130 before they had Seth. So it was even less kids.... And when did Eve go into menopause? Even less kids.

You're gonna need to show the math if you're ever going to convince any of us that 2 people were able to bring the population up to 7 billion in 6,000 years.

And you still didn't explain how Eve pumped out Asians, Africans and Latinos much less any of the other questions I posted. That's what creationists do... they just gloss over and ignore the bits they can't explain.....

It was 8 people after the flood and it is very possible for the population to grow from 8 people to 200 million in 3,000 years.

World Population Since Creation

 

[cbirch2]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

Let's get to the important questions and leave the rhetoric alone.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions ,

Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

We've already talked about this

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen?

We've talked about this too. Im open to the idea of god.

And according to theory at least, nothing compressed it. There was never a period of compression, ill explain in a second.

Where did gravity come from that held it together?

It was never held together, according to the theory. Again, follow me along while i teach you the big bang theory.

The dot spun rapidly until it exploded,then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Yea this is just wrong. There was no before the big bang.

Ever heard of the concept of spacetime? Space and time are one object, this is proved by general relativity. If space was created at the moment of the big bang, time was as well. Therefore it makes no sense to refer to the time before the big bang.

At least according to the theory.

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode.

Dot wasnt spinning. Friction did not exist, because mass did not exist, because at the moment of big bang electroweak symmetry had not broke, so particles did not have mass.

Follow yet?

If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this spinning dot would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

Most simplistic argument ive ever heard. Even if that was a valid argument, which its not because it wasnt spinning as explained above, you would still be wrong. That assumes that none of the particles created after the universe cools will ever interact with each other, ever. lets just imagine that particles dont have electric charges, shall we?

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

Wow. Conservation of angular momentum does not mean everything is spinning the same way.

So all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. But two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

The Big Bang: Scientific and Biblical reasons why it is not possible

How do you explain this ?

Angular momentum does not mean everything is simply spinning the same way. It means angular momentum is conserved, just what it says.

Again, physics major here!

If you dont understand the equations of circular motion you should just stop now. And i dont think you do, from what i read above.

 

[cbirch2]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science. For example, the big bang is not compatible with the order, timescale and cause of the events of creation as recorded in Genesis. Really, the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible.

So, this weak cluster-pattern of galaxies does not support the big bang with its billions of years. On the contrary, the big bang is simply assumed in order to explain this clustering within a naturalistic framework.


Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.



Star Formation and Creation


Can We See Stars Forming?

by Wayne R. Spencer on

November 19, 2008


Semi-technical



age-of-stars
astronomy
author-wayne-spencer
stellar-evolution


Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust

A recent article on the Internet was entitled “Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.”1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

Did you read my article about star formation at all?

Its not a star weve deemed as "young"

Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.

What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?

A star?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Proto Galaxy - Astronomers discover a small proto galaxy 13.2 billion light-years away | TopNews United States

There is tremendous difficulting in getting stars to form on their own?

Seriously?

What do you expect giant clouds of gas to do in space? No forces act on a gas cloud but itself and gravity. Its going to collapse in on itself eventually, its a mathematical inevitability.

YaleNews | Astronomers Witness a Star Being Born

We do see stars being born fool. What is that? Oh its just a cloud of hydrogen collapsing in on itself and heating up in the process.

Nope thats not the definition of a star or anything.

Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.



Star Formation and Creation


Can We See Stars Forming?

by Wayne R. Spencer on

November 19, 2008


Semi-technical



age-of-stars
astronomy
author-wayne-spencer
stellar-evolution


Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust

A recent article on the Internet was entitled “Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.”1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

Did you read my article about star formation at all?

Its not a star weve deemed as "young"

Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.

What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?

A star?

So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool

 

[daws101]

so are you suggesting life began with these organisms you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.

I wanna know where Cain got his wife. When I google it, everyone says it was his sister. That's just gross. The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.

so are you suggesting life began with these organisms you really are way out there and don't have a clue about reality.

I wanna know where Cain got his wife. When I google it, everyone says it was his sister. That's just gross. The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.

I believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But I can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ? We know all humans were from one set of human parents.

[MVP is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of MVP is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the Toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.

Al Fin: Planning for Apocalypse: Minimum Viable Population


The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

You don't realize you don't have an argument until life is found somewhere other then our planet.

I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.

But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.



What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?



So your whole argument is based on the fact that there was free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.

Whats your evidence?



Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.

Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?



Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.

Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.



Which dont dominate the gene pool...

Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?



No.



You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.

UGH!



No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.



Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.



Im not sure what ive lied about so far.

So where were you educated again and what degree do you hold? I was forthcoming about my background.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?

I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.

No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.

11-Big Bang or Big Dud?

not credible source!

 

[daws101]

Yes it was certainly explosion by the way it's taught.

Are you still claiming the big bang was a chemical explosion? Wow.

Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.



What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.

That is their reasoning because they see the the universe expanding.

Exactly right. We see the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.

Game over, you lose.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

bahahahahahahahahaha!
that's some spin!
the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning covering yourself with knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,

 

[daws101]

So where did all the water come from ?

We observe chemical elements made in the Big Bang.
In the 1940's, the physicist George Gamow and his colleagues realized that the early universe must have been extremely hot as well as dense. Scientists were just beginning to understand that under great heat and density, chemical elements can be transformed from one into the other. Gamow and his colleagues calculated that for a hot, dense, and expanding universe about one-quarter of the simplest chemical element - hydrogen - would have been "cooked" into the element helium. Astronomers have measured the proportion of hydrogen and helium scattered through our universe, and it matches the prediction perfectly. This was strong evidence that the early universe was hot as well as dense.

--Universe Forum--Big Bang--What was it?

I guess we are done and you don't know what you're talking about other then theory.

Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.

And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!

Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?

water is not 1 chemical it's two as in H20.

 

[daws101]

The LORD’S Care over All His Works.

1Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, You are very great;
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.

3He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks upon the wings of the wind;

4He makes the winds His messengers,
Flaming fire His ministers.

5He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.

6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.

7At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.

8The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.

9You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth.

10He sends forth springs in the valleys;
They flow between the mountains;

11They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.

12Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
They lift up their voices among the branches.

13He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works.

14He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth,

15And wine which makes man’s heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man’s heart.

16The trees of the LORD drink their fill,
The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,

17Where the birds build their nests,
And the stork, whose home is the fir trees.

18The high mountains are for the wild goats;
The cliffs are a refuge for the shephanim.

19He made the moon for the seasons;
The sun knows the place of its setting.

20You appoint darkness and it becomes night,
In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about.

21The young lions roar after their prey
And seek their food from God.

22When the sun rises they withdraw
And lie down in their dens.

23Man goes forth to his work
And to his labor until evening.

24O LORD, how many are Your works!
In wisdom You have made them all;
The earth is full of Your possessions.

25There is the sea, great and broad,
In which are swarms without number,
Animals both small and great.

26There the ships move along,
And Leviathan, which You have formed to sport in it.

27They all wait for You
To give them their food in due season.

28You give to them, they gather it up;
You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good.

29You hide Your face, they are dismayed;
You take away their spirit, they expire
And return to their dust.

30You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
And You renew the face of the ground.

31Let the glory of the LORD endure forever;
Let the LORD be glad in His works;

32He looks at the earth, and it trembles;
He touches the mountains, and they smoke.

33I will sing to the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.

34Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the LORD.

35Let sinners be consumed from the earth
And let the wicked be no more.
Bless the LORD, O my soul.
Praise the LORD!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you still claiming the big bang was a chemical explosion? Wow.

Were gonna have to talk about this. If you cant even understand this simple concept were done.



What? There is actually evidence for these things. There is evidence that the moon formed via impact with the earth.



Exactly right. We see the universe expanding. We see it. We witness it. Its been observed.

Game over, you lose.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

bahahahahahahahahaha!
that's some spin!
the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning covering yourself with knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,

How is stretching out the heavens a metaphor ? Where do you get metaphor from ?

These things actually happen.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hydrogen and helium atoms were only able to form after electroweak symmetry broke!!!! Do i need to post that graphic again!?! The chemical elements hydrogen and helium were formed shortly after the big bang as the universe cooled, but they did not exist as atoms at the first moment of the big bang.

And wtf are you talking about water?

Water was certainly not present at the time of the big bang!

Water is a chemical and it's found on other planets isn't it ? Where did it come from ?

water is not 1 chemical it's two as in H20.

Your point ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I dont have a definitive argument that life does exist, just like you dont have an argument that it doesnt.

But i do have an argument that plenty of earth like planets exist.



What about the nucleotides we find in meteors?



So your whole argument is based on the fact that there was free oxygen? Evidence please? I have evidence for my position, oxidized iron deposits.

Whats your evidence?



Um the big bang has nothing at all to do with oxygen. Not a single thing. learn science. The BB claims oxygen atoms did not exist anywhere at all in vast quantities for long after the big bang. Dont bring up the big bang theory to me, because i will teach you things you'll never even understand.

Wanna talk about the existence of the CMB and the big bang theorys perfect prediction of its temperature?



Lol you think the big bang had to do with oxygen. Evidently you think it was a chemical explosion.

Ill add this to the things i had to teach you, along with atoms and mutations.



Which dont dominate the gene pool...

Do you understand the significance of the frequency of alleles in a population? Do you understand the difference between mendelian genetics and darwinian genetics even in the slightest bit?



No.



You have presented no such evidence. How do beneficial mutations simple leave the gene pool. It is passed along just like any other gene. Saying a beneficial mutation would leave a gene pool is like saying the genes to make a kidney would leave a gene pool. It doesnt make sense to anyone that knows anything.

UGH!



No, it hasnt. Theyre actually fairly common.



Are you suggesting that cerebral palsy will dominate the human gene pool? If not then your argument is totally useless.



Im not sure what ive lied about so far.



University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?

I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.

No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.

11-Big Bang or Big Dud?

not credible source!

Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.

What do you consider a credible source ?

Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.

 

[cbirch2]

Who are you calling fool you brainwashed little twit.



Star Formation and Creation


Can We See Stars Forming?

by Wayne R. Spencer on

November 19, 2008


Semi-technical



age-of-stars
astronomy
author-wayne-spencer
stellar-evolution


Keywords: stars, star formation, creation, infant stars, European Southern Observatory, Very Large Telescope Interferometer, VLTI, astronomy, creation scientists, disks, clouds, gas, dust

A recent article on the Internet was entitled “Infant Stars Caught in Act of Feeding.”1 New techniques are allowing astronomers to study disks of dust and gas around stars at very high levels of detail. The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (or VLTI) in Chile is able to measure at an angle so small, it would be like looking at the period of a sentence at a distance of 50 Kilometers (31 Miles). An interferometer combines the data from two or more telescopes that are separated from each other in such a way that the multiple telescopes act like one much larger telescope. A recent study looked at six stars known as Herbig Ae/Be objects, believed to be young stars still growing in size from their formation. This study was directed at finding what is happening to the dust and gas surrounding these stars.

Astronomers frequently report observations like this of “new stars” or “young stars,” which assume that these stars formed within the last few million years. Astronomers who believe the big bang and today’s other naturalistic origins theories would say stars can form in the present from clouds of dust and gas in space. Realize that no one saw these stars form. Instead, the properties of these stars, along with their location near gas and dust clouds where astronomers think that stars form is the basis for the belief that they are recently formed stars.


Star Formation and Creation - Answers in Genesis

Did you read my article about star formation at all?

Its not a star weve deemed as "young"

Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.

What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?

A star?

So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool

Lol really?

What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?

The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.

Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.

Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".

 

[LOki]

The big bang, however, has been refuted on the basis of both Scripture and good science.

Nonsense.

Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, the big bang is not the only unwarranted assumption involved in the “sound waves” interpretation. The secular explanation also assumes that stars and galaxies can form from regions of high density. But this has never been observed. No galaxy has ever been observed to form at all. And there are tremendous scientific difficulties in getting stars to form from collapsing gas clouds. No wonder that even many secular scientists blast the big bang.

“Ripples” of Galaxies—Another Blow to the Big Bang - Answers in Genesis

Superstition inspired nonsense.

Oh boy

Looks like I scored another

.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Did you read my article about star formation at all?

Its not a star weve deemed as "young"

Its a cloud of hydrogen that is not yet a star, but is coalescing and heating up at the same time. Just like a star would as its being born.

What would you call a cloud of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion because of gravitational forces?

A star?

So you admit that no stars have been observed forming ? I said that view was just an active imagination. Then you called me fool

Lol really?

What will happen to that cloud of hydrogen as it collapses in on itself?

The moment that a star ignites is a fairly fast event. Its pretty understandable that we havent observed that moment in the several billion year life time of stars.

Again, whats the ultimate outcome of a protostar, a hot dense cloud of hydrogen? Inevitably, it is a star. There is no way around it, as long as the cloud has enough mass. Its not even debatable.

Again, your argument boils down to "pics or it didnt happen".

No your evidence once again boils down to imagination since it is not observed evidence. That is the problem with all secular theories they are erroneous conclusions from no observed evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nonsense.

Events of creation as recorded in Genesis are a fairy tale.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Superstition inspired nonsense.

Oh boy

Looks like I scored another

.

It's funny you give such ignorant responses on something you know very little about and actually think you scored points,dillusional you are.

 

[LOki]

Oh boy

Looks like I scored another

.

It's funny you give such ignorant responses on something you know very little about and actually think you scored points,dillusional you are.

Definite headshot.

 

[daws101]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. big bang theory - (cosmology) the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature


No God is causing the exspansion.

Psa 104:2 covering Yourself with light as with a robe; and stretching out the heavens like a curtain;

You are so wrong.

bahahahahahahahahaha!
that's some spin!
the more correct interpretation would be:"light"as with a robe" meaning covering yourself with knowledge... "stretching out to the heavens like a curtain" means teaching that knowledge to all...
you ass wipe, it's metaphor not literal.
btw LIGHT HAS ALMOST NO MASS It does not cause expansion ,

How is "stretching out the heavens a metaphor" ? Where do you get metaphor from ?

These things actually happen.

yes they do,,,your description of their causation has no basis in fact.


In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

 

[daws101]

If life is only on our planet does that not make our planet unique and special ?

I have no reason to believe life is on other planets.

No but most explosions do not happen without oxygen. Just for the record i don't believe in the Big Bang either just pointing out flaws with your theories.

11-Big Bang or Big Dud?

not credible source!

Are you educated by people who hold degrees so was russ.

What do you consider a credible source ?

Russ miller is in full agreement with creationist that hold degrees in the sciences. And was educated by creationist.

NO I was educated in college by professors that held many degrees I have one myself.

What do you consider a credible source ?..one that has evidence and is based in science..
yours is not .

 

[daws101]

i wanna know where cain got his wife. When i google it, everyone says it was his sister. That's just gross. The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.

i wanna know where cain got his wife. When i google it, everyone says it was his sister. That's just gross. The gene pool sure didn't grow by having sex with your siblings.

i believe the land of nod, the reason it is wrong is you have better chance of passing on defective genes. At the time his either was his sister or there were humans in the land of nod to grow the human population. The bible don't go into detail. But at that time their bodies were much closer to perfection so less chance ofbad genes existing. But i can't for sure because the bible don't go into detail. But either way if we all originated from one life form you would be a product of inbreeding ,still grose ? We know all humans were from one set of human parents.

[mvp is the minimum number of healthy surviving individuals that would maximise long term survival of the population without excessive loss of genetic variability through genetic drift--without losing evolutionary potential. The safest estimate of mvp is approximately 10,000 individuals--roughly the number of humans supposed to survive the toba catastrophe 75,000 years ago.

al fin: Planning for apocalypse: Minimum viable population


the toba supereruption (youngest toba tuff or simply ytt[1]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at lake toba (sumatra, indonesia). It is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter and possibly an additional 1,000-year cooling episode. This change in temperature resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution.

toba catastrophe theory - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ywc dodged this question!