It doesn't prove creation, it proves evolution. Well, it's one of the biggest peices of evidence that proves evolution to have happened.

it does'nt prove creation but evolution. Hmph. Then what would prove creation then smarty pants?

I don't belive anything proves creationism.
Anyway, I thought you were the one trying to prove creationism over evolution and the Big Bang.

I simply read a few of the first posts and i see no reason to accept the age of the dinosaurs skull. Carbon 14 dating is unreliable in my opinion as IIt assumes 2 things;That the amount of carbon present on earth was steady at all times and2;That conditions in the past are the same as now, meaning that carbon will decompose at the same rate

Dragadon,most of the world's creatures were destroyed by the great flood. People were being horribly sinful and impenitent, so god chose noah to continue the human race and then he took everything out with a flood. That's why fossils exsist

How does DNA prove evolution?Just another one of the incredible creations of god if you ask me!

Aha! See! That proves that you don't know what your talking about. I was asking you, what do you think proves DNA involves with creation. I think it does'nt in the creation case.

Hm. Ok But I often saw people explaining religious things to non religious. And the non religious always wanted to be right. Even if they weren´t.
Ok but I also think you souldn´t force someone to believe something. I also dont like missionaring.
Hey but even if you arent religious. Be more friendly when there´s a discussion about it.

(I wondered why there where only 9% religous in finland (that´s whats the statistic said) But if everybody thinks like you. By the way: You said you once believed in god and now you dont. Why have you believed in him? And now not. I didn´t understand this. )

Oh please statikk...there was a great flood...but not a globial one. There was a study some years ago on the great flood and they determined that it happened only around the Black Sea. Remember, at the time the bible was written...the people of europe/Asia/Africa didn't know the Americas even existed and that the world was flat and the earth revolved around the sun. And even if the poles melted completely, it would not be enough water to completely cover all the land on the planet...even if you took all the moisture out of the air, plant and animal life. Even if there was...Noah and company would have been suffering from lack of oxygen...due to having to be higher the Everest...and dont tell me that 'god' put all the extra water there and then took it away when the flood was finished...thats just plain ridiculous....
Edit: oh and...Dinosaurs lived 65 million years BEFORE humans came into being...so it is IMPOSSIBLE for man and dinosaur to have lived together...unless you count birds (the dinosaurs desendents IMHO)

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Dragadon ]

Dragadon, this can be explained by thinking of the world shielded by not only an ozone layer, but by a thick mist of water. God just jropped the bomb, so to speak.

*laughs insanely* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! *cough cough hack* Sorry...but remember...mist is more air then water...even if it was of equal parts...gravity would have pulled it down. Besides...its been proven that there is an ozone up there...not a thick shroud of mist. even if there was...the air to water ratio would prevent it from still being enough water to cover every rock and sand grain. sorry...that 'theory' won't work.

Sydney, I tried hard to imagine a contracting universe behaving like a rewinding version of our expanding one, but my efforts weren't enough. Then I tried to stick to the exact event when (or where) the expanding universe stops to expand, and starts to contract. Even though I coudn't see how all the laws of physics would be subverted to make time go backwards, for instance, unless time can be explained only as a gravitational interaction.
In my very, very, I said VERY limited understanding, I see that the gravity force is the major agent when we are talking about macrocosmic events, like galaxies interacting with each other. so, I really can't imagine your time-backward-contracting universe influeced only by gravity(at least near the "turning point" event), because many other behaviors are based in other forces, like electromagnetic forces(inter-atom interactions) and the nuclear forces (intra-atoms interactions) that wouldn't be influenced by gravity.

Dragadon, just to make things funnier, let's imagine this theory: if the surface of earth was smooth like a perfect sphere, the ammount of water that exist in the world would create a layer of at least a mile, sufficient to cover any human building by the time of the "great flood" (even the Babel Tower). Now, knowing that the surface of the Earth is continuously changing because of the moving tectonic plates, it could be argued that, at the time of the "great flood", the average altitude of Emmerse land was lower than today: remember that the Himalaia was created by the convergence of the Indian plate and the Eurasian plate, and many other mountain systems can be explained the same way, like the Andes and the North-American mountains of the west), the great depressions of the ocean floors were also created by convergent tectonic plates.

Anyway, with the right conditions, it is possible to explain a macroevent known as the "great flood" based on tectonic plates, providing that you completely discard the well known fact that they move only a few inches a year, and it would be necessary millions of years to make the water to flood everything, and another millions of years to make the land to rise high enough and the ocean floor to go deeper(the asian trenchs) and wider (the atlantic ocean floor), so that we would have the actual world geography, not to mention what kind of world climatic event made the polar ice to melt down and to become solid again...

A last thought: tectonic plates could move way much faster in the old days of the big flood... oh well... :rolleyes:

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Lampion ]

I have a strange theory concerning the center of the universe, which may be wrong and off the subject. But I figured this would be the topic to do it in. Supposedly, there is no center to the universe, right? Well, everything that is physically present has a center. Well, if the universe has no center, then it doesn't exist. If the universe doesn't exist, I am not typing this post right now, except, maybe, on a mental plane. Plus, the universe in infinite, and not just physically. Of course, outside of the universe there is a void, but there really is no universe, so the universe is infinite. But, everything inside the infinite universe is infinite. For example, time. Time has to be broken down infinitely. There is no end to time. You can break it down as far as you like past picoseconds, and you will always find that it goes on forever. So time was here before everything existed, but it wasn't. Which brings up another topic. It is here, yet it isn't. It's a paradox. I've come to the conclusion that everything in the universe, including the universe itself, is a paradox. Well, I will stop ranting now. Shoot it out of the sky if you wish. I never said I was the smartest person here.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Joe the Intern ]

So if nothing bad was ment to be in the world why did he make the bad apple tree?

Lampion, Humans haven't been around that long.

Middlesboogie: The observation that the Universe will continue expanding forever has one crucial flaw: If it were true, there would not be enough gravity in the universe to hold Galaxies together. The fact that galaxies DO stay together means that there must be more matter out there than we can see, hence the search for Dark Matter [Neutrinos, WIMPs, MACHOs, VMOs, etc.]. The Observable Fact that galaxies stay together means that there must be enough matter in the universe to cause it to fall back on itself. So, basing our theories just on observable facts, it is impossible for it to either carry on expanding forever or to collapse in on itself. Therefore there must be something that scientists don't know about, e.g. Dark Matter. Bleurgh, that was a longwinded way of saying that scientists haven't a clue...

:mad: :mad: :mad: Pinky, you keep asking for proof of the Big Bang, but when I give you it, you ignore it! I'm going to post this again, and this time READ IT:

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
There is observable radiation (in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum) left over from the big bang. It is considered [by sensible, reasonable, non-fundamentalist people] to be proof of the Big Bang.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
Lighter elements, such as Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium, were formed as a result of the big bang in a process called big bang nucleosynthesis. Scientists can calculate how much of which elements were formed, and the fact that observation agrees with calculation is considered proof of the Big Bang Theory.

Hubble Expansion
It can be observed with telescopes [by measuring the Red-Shift] that all of the galaxies in the Universe (outside the local group of galaxies) appear to be moving away from us, implying that the Universe is expanding. The phenomenon was discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929, and is generally considered to be proof of the Big Bang Theory.

Yep, I know. In case you didn't notice, I was making fun with Dragadon because of StatiKk's posts, by trying to elaborate a complex, yet totally WRONG theory about the "great flood." :) :) :)

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Lampion ]

Oh My Gosh, your an immature man! You can't prove a thing that the flood was a theory! Which it was not a theory. Don't destroy people's belief's, that's not right!

Rettick, I already saw your so called proof. That's still nothing. How can they be so sure? No matter what you say, I am going to believe in creationism and there's nothing you can say to change my mind about God not existing! :mad:

So just stop proving that it happened okay? I don't want to hear you guys saying that were wrong and you guys think your right. Your guys might be wrong also. When if you are wrong? Hmmmmmm????

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

Hmm... "can't disprove a theory", therefore is "immature"... No, can't see where you got that one from...

Anyway, why should he have to prove that it didn't happen? The burden of proof is on you to prove that it did...

Well, what do you explain the creation on earth? The fall od dinosaurs than? Hmmmmm???

Pinky, if the universe is still expanding, the Big Bang HAD TO HAPPEN! Creationism suggests that the universe isn't expanding at all.

Yeah, sure, the Big bang theory happened. SOrry, don't believe it.

BLW, Creationism is a belief. The belief that God created the heavens and the earth in 7 days.

freakyLA: I don't know what statistic you've been reading but people really are religious in Finland. Especially the old ones. And many youngsters are as well. I'm really interested.. where did you read that from? Was it like asked from people or was it some statistic made by in wich church they belong to. Because I don't know many people that aint in a some kind of church. The most of the I think are in ev.lut. churches. I don't really know how to say it in english.. evangelic lutheric...? okay.. I really don't know..

Yes. I believed in god. Like I believed in Santa when I was a child. My parents and my teacher in kinder garden and in school told me so and I believed them of course. Why would my parents lie to me? Well they didn't lie.. They believe in god. But I don't. I don't really understand how can you TEACH someone to BELIEVE in something. It's really everyone's own business if they believe in something or not. And I shouldn't judge those that believe in something. And I really don't. Everyone can believe in what ever they want. And yes, I know. I could have been friendlier.. Sorry.

Pinky, we know that. That's what we've been saying for ages: It's just a belief. The Big Bang, on the other hand, is History.

Creation on earth itself is still fairly unknown (from what I know)...But the demise of the dinosaurs I do know something about. 65 million years ago a 5 or 6 mile long meteor crashed into the Earth (in the Yukatan Pennislsa which is next to the Gulf of Mexico(forgive my spelling...)). The impact caused tons of dust and debrus to enter the atmostsphere, blocking out the sun and plunging the Earth into a kind of nucular winter for months. When the sun finally shone through again...all the dinosaurs along with many other animals were gone (75% of the worlds species...both on land and the water)...this great extinction paved the way for mammals to evolve.

Big Bang theory is a belief and a theory.

Big Bang theory is a belief and a theory.

Pinky, the Big Bang has been proven time and again as a fact. It is just your fundamentalist attitude that you won't accept it as one.

The Earth was formed by the gravity of small things clumping togther to make bigger things with more gravity which attracts more small things.
Simple.

I don't have to believe it. I believe the creation stories in the bible. You don't have to believe in the bible creation stories if you don't want to, I'm not forcing ya.

Then where did the bigger things come from? Creation of humans?

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

Evolution.
Chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene br Richard Dawkins explains in a lot of detail about how life evolved from no life.

most people seem to believe that dinosaurs became extinct from one thing but there were many things involved such as siesmic activity grew causing high levels of volcaic eruptions and a lot of poisonous air then there was the meteor which blocked out the sun and sent a shockwave over the earth also I'm not sure but I think the plants became poisonous too.

Pinky, I have two words for you: Edit Button. You've been on the forums for a long time now, you should know how to edit by now...

Do you have glasses? You see I use it!

Then why did you post two posts one after another? You didn't use it then, did you?

Hi, Pinky, here we are again, trying to keep things clear so that you can digere them easily. Your posts always amuse me, and no scentific/religious discussion are the same without your contributions full of good intention. I really hope you read my post until the end, as it is mainly directed to you.

(1)First of all, I cannot see how you are able to judge me as an immature man, and I guess everyone can't either, by simply reading what I've written while in this topic. (2)Second, when I said that about trying to elaborate a complex, yet totally WRONG theory about the great flood, I was clearly refering to My Own Theory Based on The Tectonic Plates (3) not Stattik's theory or belief. I have not even examined his idea of the atmosphere full of water sufficient to make a great flood. Have you ever read my first post? There you can see that I elaborated a theory that sounded good, but it was wrong, I already made that clear in the end. It was only for fun. And finally: can you make the difference between what the word "theory" means, and what the word "fact" means?

THEORY is an explanation to a given FACT. I'll give you an example (remember, please that it is only an example, it isn't directly related to our particular discussion about the great flood described in the holy bible):

Take a little rock in your hand and throw it as high as you can. What happens? It falls. Try with several rocks, from different sizes, shapes, textures, materials. Try from different places on Earth. What always happens? All the rocks keep falling. It leads you to this observation, or belief:

FACT: IF you throw a rock using your hand, from any point on the surface of Earth, it always falls.

Now, let's try to elaborate a theory: we can argue that a strange and invisible force tends to make the rock and the surface of the Earth to clump togheter, because they are made of the same matter. This invisible force we can call "gravity". we can even measure it using unities of mass, time and lenght. The magical average "gravitational" force on the surface of Earth is aproximately 9,8 Kgm/s². Although this theory is obvious now, people spent a good couple of thousand years to achieve that. Simplifying:

THEORY 1: there is an invisible force called gravity that makes different amounts of mass to clump togheter after a given time and it is directly proportional to their masses , and diversily proportional to the square of the distances that separate each other

Let's make a step further, and elaborate another theory to explain the same fact.

THEORY 2: there are invisible beings, called elementals, that inhabit all the portions of mass that forms the Earth, from the air, plants, animals, rocks , the water, the magma from the inner core of our planet, and everything else. They share a strong affininty that makes them tend to stick togheter explaining how a rock throwng into the air tends to fall back to Earth, where there is the higher concentration of these little elementals. This affinity makes objects to accelerate at a ratio of 9.8 m/s² close to the surface of Earth.

Here we started with an observation of a fact, then described that fact in order to explain its behavior, and also to predict future observations. From now on, if we throw a rock, we believe it will fall based on our theory of gravitational force, or even in our theory of the elementals(this particular one could be more easely accepted in some primitive culture, though).

Finally, getting back to our specific discussion. The first step is to accept "The Great Flood" as a FACT. How can we do this? By finding evidences that show it is a fact, in the same way we did to accept as a fact that all rocks keep falling if we throw them with our hand..

Once we accept it, we can go and try to find a theory, i.e. an explanation of how it happened, just in case we are curious to understand a little about what kind of physical mechanisms were involved in the process of making The Great Flood. Here we can cleary see the difference between FACT and THEORY. A Fact is an statement, an observation, while a Theory is an explanation of given facts, and a prediction to new ones.

However, if we cannot accept "The Great Flood" as a fact, we cannot make the further step, that is, to find a theory to explain how it happened.

This is the main issue when we are discussing Religion and Science. Often, people forget that theories explain facts, but don't create them. They existed previously.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Lampion ]

Well actually you could say that everything you see is in fact not true this is entirely possible you cannot prove anyone or anything exist there for everything in the known universe a theory. Also studies have shown that the part of the brain that does conscious thinking doesn't react until after what has been done has been done therefore all knowledge is a product of your (my) bizarre imagination unless we somehow all come to the same conclusion of things and understand what our subconscious is doing.

Interesting point, Steve. But the way we try to explain the Universe with endless theories doesn't change the fact that it exists or not. It will still exist, no matter we see it as a caotic ammount of erroneous subatomic particles, or an harmonious creation of God.
Explaining the whole world as a product of our brains is a wrong egocentric idea, created by selfish and frightened humans that cannot accept how insignificant they are, compared to the infinite magnitude of the universe.

Perhaps you mean that the evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory has been proven. As a geologist by training and former science teacher, I believe that the Big Bang Theory most likely describes the origin of the universe and explains the structure of the cosmos. However, unless there have been recent scientific developments of which I'm not aware, the Big Bang Theory is still just that -- a theory. By definition, that means it hasn't been proven absolutely, no matter how confident astronomers are that in fact this is the true explanation of things. This is perhaps splitting hairs in the context of the discussion here, as there is clearly much more scientific evidence in support of the Big Bang than there is for divine creation. However, to be completely fair, while stating that the universe is expanding may be a statement of fact, to state that the Big Bang happened is a statement of belief and not fact.