Me and Pinky
 

Okay, I don't know about anyone else, but I am sick of this constant bickering. I've decided to bring our differences out into the open, and try and get some kind of resolution for them...

Oft-asked Question: Why do you two go on arguing, even though you know neither of you are going to give in?

My Answer: Of course, I can't speak for Pinky, but I take part in these debates purely as an attempt to learn more about other people. I first started arguing with Pinky in an attempt to understand what she believes. I now, of course, have more than enough information, but still I go on. Why? Because I seek to understand why she believes what she does.

The way I see it, you can believe something for one of two reasons:

1) You have seen Evidence for it, and believe that that evidence outweighs any conflicting evidence.

2) Blind Faith.

There is no 'third way', since if there is no evidence, then you are by definition believing purely through Blind Faith. I would like to stress that I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. In many ways, I envy those who can believe in something on Faith alone, for I am unable to...

Basically, I want to know whether Pinky considers herself to be believing through Blind Faith or through Evidence. She claims to have Evidence, but refuses to post it no matter how much we ask her to.

The purpose of this topic is to put an end to these arguments. For this purpose, I will require one of two responses from Pinky:

Either:
1) She posts the Evidence that she has for her beliefs,
Or:
2) She admits to Blind Faith, for good or bad.

There. It's simple. What's your answer, Pinky?

Why do you call christianity bling faith? Evolution to me is blind made up details, that some dead guy made up which he has'nt seen himself. Do you believe in Social Darwinism?

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

Might I recommend that you read my post? I believe in Evolution because there is evidence. You have so far failed to show me any evidence for Creationism, therefore I must assume that it is just Blind Faith. Comprende?

Now could you just answer the question, please? Civilly, if you can; I don't want this topic turning into a bloodbath...

That is not evidence. There's some information out there without evidence and still can be true. Evolution, is not one of them because it does'nt not explain anything on how humans were nade, how the particles which they claimed made the earth appear. I know the theory on how the earth was made. That theory's not just because it does'nt explain specifically what came from what.

Pinky, stop dodging the question with gibberish. Just answer the question, and we can put this all behind us...

*Sigh* What's your crazy question now so I can go and dye my hair. :rolleyes:

So you mean you posted in this topic without even reading it? The whole of my first post was the question! How could you miss it?

I'll reiterate it:

Do you beieve what you do because of Evidence or because of Blind Faith?
If you chose "Evidence", what is your evidence?

I don't care that you two argue, the only reason I may have over reacted earlier was because most of the debate consisted of punches at each other's spelling and grammar.

Other than that, I enjoy your chats. Sorry again if I over reacted...

1. It is evidence. I don't see you showing-off any of your evidence (that is if you have any evidence at all).
2. There are plenty of facts which don't have any evidence. That's because no one knows what these facts are. For example, no one knows much about the far-reaches of our own galaxy, never mind the universe.
3. To me, at least, it explains everything perfectly.
4. Yes it does. Maybe your definition of science is different to mine.

Tom, I deliberately avoided picking up on those things to avoid an argument... Now you've said that, she's going to use your post to be able to ignore my question, like she always does whenever someone asks her a question she has no answer to...

It's not evidence or facts! I mean, the information you gave me earlier Rettick, did not prove on creation. SO where's your proff on creation? I guess you don't have any. You did'nt answer my question on that did ya bud! You guys are like evolution and crap, what about creation of earth and what came from what? You never explained that so by that I don't believe in evolution and it's wrong! :D

I have to put my evidence on the next post. I have some.

Yeh. That's really annoying. How could we believe that she really stands up for her words and that she has evidence for her claims when she always ignores our questions. She hasn't answered any of mine.. When you don't answer and you change the subject.. it's obvious that you can't say anything that would support your claims..

And you'll notice she did exactly what I said she would do...

Anyway, Pinky, there's a difference between Evidence and Proof. There is no Proof for my beliefs, but at least there is Evidence, whereas there is no evidence for Creationism.

Would you like to prove me wrong? If you would, then POST YOUR EVIDENCE! If you can't do that, then admit that you have none. It's as simple as that.

Rettikk, lay your cards on the table and give me your dad blasted info so i can blow it up like a crippled duck!!! Where is yer evidence anyway, cause I had it up to this talking down to me an pinky cause you got "evidence" Bullshit! Bullshit to your nonexistentant evidence!

I did'nt answer? WEll, maybe because you never asked me any.

*Claps for Stat*

Where's you evidence on creation!? I see that there is none! Talk about me, what about you? Besides, I can give you evidence. Better than this made up Darwin information that some dead guy made up, who was never there when the Earth was created!

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

I sure did. In the Big Bang Topic.

Well can you restate it because I'm too lazy to look! :D

Pinky (and Statikk), stop trying to change the subject. I refuse to believe that you are so ignorant you can't even remember our evidence even though we've done our best to hammer it through your thick skull on many occasion! You want our evidence? Go into practically any topic where we've argued, and it'll be there before your eyes!

Now stop playing dumb and just tell us: What is this Evidence you keep telling us about?

EDIT: Look what you made me do now. I tried to keep this topic flame-free, but then Statikk had to wander in and toss Petrol around everywhere...

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Rettick ]

Pinky why can't you answer Dan's question? It's not hard. Do you want to know the question I asked in the Big Bang Topic but of course you never answered it. Well here it is
"If nothing bad was ment to be in the world why did god make the bad apple tree." But I don't Know Why I Bother you will not answer it anyway you will just change the subject like you allways do.

Why should I answer his ignorant questions, when he does'nt even answer mines? I told him to give me some evidence on creation, not evolution but he never answered it. Well he's not going to answer it, seems that he has no evidence to back it up. Besides, you guy won't understand the evidence. Like always.

Abe22, I'm sorry I did'nt answer your question. Don't be such a jerk like Rettick. But knowing you won't listen either.Why should I answer your question when you were so nasty:

"But I don't Know Why I Bother you will not answer it anyway you will just change the subject like you allways do"

You can forget it dude.

Sorry if I am souding nasty Pinky I don't mean to. Dan made this topic he asked you a question first but you ignored him You probably ignored him because you can't admit that you don't have evidence and if you do please post it you said you would. And the reason you won't answer mine is because you don't know the answer. And if I ask you a question all you say is I won't listen how do you know that why would I bother posting the question if I was not going to listen to the answer even if I didn't post "Why should I bother" you will still say I won't listen because you have no answer.
Sorry again if this sounds mean.

I would be happy to answer it! But there's other people complaining *coughs up Rettick* so I will get to you.

A accept your apology! :D

Here's some general proofs:

Rule 1:

"For everything made, there is a maker"

If you have a table in your house, the chance is someone made it directly or indirectly for you. It did not made itself, or it was not made by a chance. Same rule applies for your car, your house, your clothes, your medicine, and everything else in your home or at your work.

The common sense says that there is a worker behind every work; there is a maker for everything made. Nothing is made by itself or by a chance. Sometimes things are complicated enough to take many steps and perhaps many people to work in until they reach you. Actually, it depends on two factors. First, how complicated this job is, and second, how much experience and intelligence the maker has. For example, you can find someone who is intelligent enough to finish a job by himself that is usually required many people to finish.

There is nothing in this universe that would not submit to this simple rule, everything is made by someone. For example, you will not believe someone who tells you that the complicated computer you are using now is made by a chance or by the nature! It will never happen. If we bring big pieces of some metals, chemicals, and leave them together, for even billions of year, are there a chance that they will react together in a very specific ways to create very specific memory chips, sounds, pictures - that governed by hundreds of scientific complicated equations and laws? What is the chance that they create very specific voltage, watts, bps, dimension, cache, network connection, modem speed, just to mention a few? Moreover, I have not mentioned the details of monitors, disk drives, or other very complicated parts! Also, I have not mentioned thousands of very complicated mathematical equations that work behind the seen. Examining the latest Y2K bug, it costs hundreds of billion of dollars just to fix the date. The fear of the consequences of Y2K was felt in every business. Any single computer has tens of thousands of line coding behind the seen. Sometimes, a single line of errors could disable your computer. Your computer will not be fixed even if it left alone for million of years. Nature will not fix it, and for sure it will not be fixed by a chance. The only way to correct your computer is to get a computer specialist to fix it. Now, who would believe, even for a second, that this computer could be created by a chance or by the nature? Few centuries ago, some people could believe this proclamation. But, today, after we discovered how compilcated everything in this universe, it is hard to beleive. United States spent billions after billions of dollars for over half a century, in research in Space. You ask any scientist, how much we know after all these years. The answer is very little. They will tell you how complicated the universe is, and how it is governed by millions of complicated laws that control everything in the universe. If you ask scientist about the smallest plant or animal, they will tell you how the system in each is fully equipped with wonders to keep each functioning smoothly. Can you tell me - in the age of science and technology- that all these come to existence by a chance or by nature? It will be a joke. Logically, it is not acceptable. In conclusion, we go back to the same simple rule in life, ‘for everything made there is a maker.’ Thanks to science. It helps us to get back to common sense.

This will lead us to an important question to visit:

How Things Are Made?

To make anything you need the following mix:

Materials or elements to use
Tools
Power to make things happen, such as electrical power, magnetic power, steam power, or human power.
Intelligence that applies common sense, physical laws, and logical thinking.
A touch of beauty that make things acceptable in smell, shape, and continuity.


To illustrate what I have mentioned above, let me take a simple task of making a table. First, you need materials such as refine wood, glue, nails, and paint. Secondly, you need tools to perform this task, such as hammers, pliers, and saws. Thirdly, you need human power, and perhaps electrical power to cut, glue things together. Fourthly, you need an intelligent person that understands the natural laws, the materials, and the ins and outs of the process. A power by itself, unless mastered by intelligence, could destroy instead of building. A power needs directions and control by an intelligent person to make it useful. You will not leave the materials to the wind power or the electrical power and assumes that they will make you a chair. Finally, you need a person that adds a touch of beauty to make the table doesn’t look ugly, but rather something beautiful, or may have a touch of great beauty.

Practice 1:

Think about something as big as a planet, or as small as a bacteria or about one function in human body or a mountain. Apply the above, common sense, rules to it. Think about what it takes to make it? Does time by itself is enough to create it? What is the chance for such a thing to happen- if there is any? Is it enough for the powers, by themselves, to make it without intelligence? And where this intelligence coming from?

Now, think about the beauty of what you select to think about. How beautiful is it? To have such a beauty, don’t you need a person with feelings to add beauty? Art and beauty needs feelings, this is the ABC of art. You cannot be an artist without a feeling. You can not express beauty unless you have a soul that tastes beauty. Apply this now to what you have selected to think about.

What is your conclusion?

Now, I would like you to think thoroughly about what we have concluded so far before we get deeper in lesson two.



Lesson Two:

Before advancing to lesson 2, it is better to summarize some of the rules of what we have learned so far.

Rule 2:

A power by itself, unless mastered by intelligence, could destroy instead of building. A power needs directions and control by an intelligent person to make it useful.

Rule 3:

Beauty needs feelings. Without feelings there is no beauty. To have a feeling, you need a person


Now let us continue in our discussion:

Rule 4:

There should be a first maker

To explain what I meant by rule number 4, let us talk about the bread on your table. Someone in your household had bought it from a store. Before that a driver carried it to the store. Just before that another person put it in a plastic, and another person before the last bake the bread. We can continue in this series of actions until we reach the person who plant the seeds in the first place.

So, all the actions will eventually come to the first action, in another word it comes to a person who was the initiator. Similar to a train, the last car in the train is pulled by the one just in front of it, and this one is pulled by another car ahead of it. All cars are pulled by another. But the end you have to have a beginning, an engine car that has the power to pull all the other cars. A one that has is the beginning of action, the initiator, the source, and the reasons for movement of all other cars that follows it.

Through a simple explanation, things you see are made of others, and those of others are in return made of others, and so on, until you reach the very first source. Because, it has to be a first source, a beginning. For example, a car is made of so many complicated systems, each composes from different component, and each component is made of different materials. These materials are made of different elements. So, finally, you reach the very basics, the elements such as iron, hydrogen and oxygen.

These elements are the basis for each material in the universe. Examining each element, you find its wonderful inner system that consists atoms that has electrons, protons and neutrons. Now, we come to the basics of basics, the beginnings of beginning. So, the whole universe is consisting from atoms. But in a wonderful and very intelligent ways the atoms arranged in different ways to make unique element, and these elements in return combined to produce materials, each is so unique also.

Let us think about what made the atom with all the laws and mathematical complicated equations that control its formation, its component, its unique characters, and its special behaviors in different positions and environments.

Could it be possible that nature, as a collective body of power, made the atom?

If we stop for a moment to think, our conclusion would be ‘no.’ It is impossible for just a power to think, plan with a vision that will build on the existence of an atom a whole universe, build an atom with the amazing structure as we know it today, and keep the structure from not being destroyed by another power or by a component of the original power. To keep something, you need to create the environment that keeps it. To create that environment, you need to understand in advance what are you trying to protect and the components of environment and the power balance of it. Can any power do that without intelligence, very high intelligence with very high understanding?

It is amazing to listen to scientists when they are making an experience and trying to understand all the factors that could affect the chemical reaction, for example, and try to control one factor at a time to reach a controlled experience. So, they admit that there are stable materials, and there are factors, and to make any intelligent changes you have to study hard and to make hard choices, and sometimes they can predict the end-result product. Some do all that in the laboratory, but when it comes to a discussion like ours they insist that nature made everything! How it could be my beloved scientist? If you, with all your intelligence and understanding, spend years trying to control the experience’s environment, how could you imagine that without any controlling the nature formed everything. We are dealing at the basis now, at the atom level, would it make sense that there should be an intelligent being who without any materials, at the time of beginning, formed the first component of a material, the atom. Don’t you agree with me that such a person has a great knowledge of all powers that exist in the universe? Don’t you think that intelligent being is so genius that he made the whole universe just out of these few components of atom?


Now we come to the conclusion of the following rule:

Rule 5:

In the beginning was a very intelligent being who put together the atom.

Practice:

Think about the different elements: iron, copper, chlorine, sodium, and radium. Compare the different characters of each. If you have a friend who works in chemistry, ask him about the difference in between each atom. See for yourself how a difference in one electron and proton can make a big difference. Could be done by non-intelligent power?


Lesson 3:

The Amazing Systems

We stopped last at the very component of the matter, the atom and its component of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now, we will examine something very large indeed, the Solar System. Look at the planets of the Solar System going around the sun. Earth, Venus, March, and the rest they go in circles around the sun. Very similar of what happens in the atom. In the atoms go in circles around the nucleus. We should stop here to think about what we see. The smallest is matching the largest. Isn’t that tell us about a one intelligent being that made both systems, and of course everything in between because everything in between is made of the atoms?

Here is the stamp of that intelligent being on both. They are not similar on the structure only, but to have these structures, you have to have similar power that keeps each in its place without being attracted to one another.

To made control of these powers in its smallest form. In atoms, and its largest form, in the solar system, you have to have understanding of all the power in the universe, the smaller and the bigger. You have to have control over the smallest and the largest powers in this universe. To have all these intelligence and power before starting of the matters, who is that being?

He should be all almighty, all-powerful, and all intelligent.

Rule 6:

There is one very intelligent being who made both the atom and the solar system, which is all almighty, all-powerful, and all intelligent.



Lesson 4:

Everything in Between the Atom and the Solar System

We stopped in last lesson at our comparison between the atom and the solar system. We concluded that both are having the same structure and power-controlling system. With this kind of similarities, the maker should be the same intelligent being. Everything in between these two, the smallest and the largest, are made of atoms: waters, rocks, mountains, mud, sands, and the rest. So, everything in between has the same structure. In other words, it was made by the same intelligent being. The same engineer who invented the first theory and made the atoms, afterwards, he used the atom to form everything else. He is the powerful being that used the original structure to apply to all. He first made the atom that can not be seen the naked eye, and used it in making the elements, and from the elements he made everything else.

I would like to imagine for a moment a universe in its first moments, a universe without earth or sun or anything else. Then came this intelligent being and made the atoms. You can imagine now that there were only useless atoms. The same being started shaped each atom differently to start having different elements. From the elements everything else was composed. Like a beautiful symphony composed with smaller tones by its composer, the world was composed from these elements by the same maker.

Therefore, scientifically, in the very beginning there were nothing until the atom was made and this was the beginning of making of this world.


If I am a pioneer who started a wonderful piece of art or a theory, people will not call me a maker, but a creator. If that intelligent being who started the atom, and the matter along with it, and from it everything else, isn’t appropriate to call him the creator, the father of the creation, and not only a maker. Doesn’t he deserve the title ‘The Beginning’, the alpha.


Lesson 5:

Who Is That Great Creator?

So far we have seen that being started the matter, and we could see his work grow from the smallest until it reached the largest. All made of the same elements. In a wonderful controlled-universe, he kept the characters of each element, chemical compound, and materials.

We need to think about the largest, the solar system with its an imaginable size. He, the creator, formed cleverly. Using the same theory, he balanced the power in a way that left all these planets go in circles around the sun. To make that huge-powerful system, what kind of a creator you are? You can’t be a short person. Even, if you are tall, how tall to reach the sun and manage her power with March?

The solar system is a part of a galaxy. Then, he took part in creating that galaxy too. Now, you can build on this knowledge in a step by step process, until you reach the conclusion that there is one creator of the entire universe.

I have some on dinos but i gotta go to bed. Later.

Oh and I forgot, there's your evidence! Happy now?

Here's some evidence Pinky. Just remember that evidence means that it COULD of happened not that it did but it could OK!

Our Universe

Two and a half models

The steady state theory of cosmology claims that the Universe simply exists without changing with time. This theory presents many physical as well as philosophical difficulties. Evidence suggests that the Universe is expanding. While there are ways to explain expansion in a steady state universe, few astrophysicists believe this theory, because there is little evidence to support it. As the first widely held theory about the Universe it is included here for historical completeness.

The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.


The Cosmic Microwave Background

After some period of time following the big bang, gravity condensed clumps of matter together. The clumps were gravitationally pulled towards other clumps and eventually formed galaxies. It is extremely difficult to model how this clumping may have occurred, but most models agree that it occurred faster than it should have. A possible explanation is that right after the big bang the Universe began a period of exaggerated outward expansion, with particles flying outward faster than the current speed of light. This explanation is known as inflation theory, and has widespread advocacy within the astrophysics community because it reconciles theory with observation. It should be noted, however, that inflation theory is not directly verifiable.

Whether you believe inflation theory or not, galaxies did form. And since they formed from matter that was moving rapidly, they also move rapidly. Due to a phenomenon called doppler shifting, the wavelength emitted by something moving away from us is shifted to a lower frequency, and the wavelength of something moving towards us is shifted to a higher frequency. A good example of this
is the sound of a fire truck siren as it drives by; the pitch of the siren is higher as the fire truck moves towards you, and lower as it moves away from you. Although this example illustrates the effect for
sound waves, the same effect occurs for all wavelengths (incuding light), the result being that visible wavelengths emitted by objects moving away from us are shifted towards the red part of the visible
spectrum, or redshifted. And the faster they move away from us, the more they are redshifted. Thus,
redshift is a reasonable way to measure the speed of an object (this, by the way, is the principal by which radar guns measure the speed of a car or baseball). Here's the point: When we observe the redshift of galaxies outside our local group, every galaxy appears to be moving away from us. We
are therefore lead to the conclusion that our Universe is expanding. This is called hubble expansion, after Edwin Hubble, who discovered the phenomenon in 1929.

Here's a subtle point that you may have wondered about: If we look out into the Universe and every galaxy we see is moving away from us, doesn't that mean that we are at the center of the Universe?
The obvious answer seems to be 'yes', but actually the answer is 'no'. Hopefully the following analogy will explain why. Image a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. As the bread bakes it gets bigger, and every raisin moves away from every other raisin. Now imagine that you are sitting on one
of the raisins (ignore the heat of the oven). All the other raisins are moving away from you, so you might conclude that you are at the center of the loaf of bread. But if you were on a different raisin you would also see every raisin moving away from you and would also conclude that you are at the center of the loaf. The same thing is happening in the Universe. No matter where you are in the
Universe, every galaxy you see is moving away from you. That's why astrophysicists say that you shouldn't talk about the center of the Universe; there really is no center of the Universe.

The oscillatory Universe model claims that the Universe started with a big bang, and that it is currently expanding. Eventually, however, the expansion will slow, stop, and then the Universe will begin to contract. The contraction will continue until all of the mass of the Universe is contained in a
singularity, a process known as the big crunch. The singularity then undergoes a big bang, and the process begins afresh. Although we shall discuss reasons why this is probably not the case, it does explain what happened before the big bang.

Top three reasons to believe big bang cosmology

1.Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
2.Cosmic Microwave Background
3.Hubble Expansion

Current Big Questions in Cosmology

Is the Universe Closed?

The question of whether the Universe will collapse in a big crunch or continue expanding forever hinges on knowing the density of the Universe. Density is defined as mass divided by volume. One can measure the density of the universe by observing the local group of galaxies and assuming that
the Universe is all the same. One can also calculate the density required such that the Universe will eventually stop expanding. That density is called the critical density, and the ratio of the observed density to the critical density is given by the Greek letter omega. If omega is less than one the
Universe will continue expanding until it is so large that it dies a cold death. If omega equals one the Universe will eventually stop expanding but will not collapse. In this case the Universe will also die a cold static death. But, if omega is greater than one, then the Universe is doomed to collapse under
it's own gravitational mass, and will die a hot, fiery death in a big crunch. But don't worry, the ultimate fate of the Universe is atleast ten billion years away.

For theoretical reasons, cosmologists believe that omega = 1. Unfortunately, attempts to measure omega yield results of about 0.1.

What is the Universe made from?

When astrophysicist Vera Ruban looked at Galaxies, she noticed a curious problem. She expected that the outer parts of a galaxy would move slower than the inner parts. But she found that this is not the case. The rotation curves of galaxies (a graph of the radius of a galaxy versus rotational speed) is flat, meaning that the outer parts move at the same speed as the inner parts. Large amounts of mass would account for the unexpected speed, but we don't see the mass that should be there.

To aid your understanding of this, think of how planets revolve around the Sun in our solar system. Mercury (the closest planet to the Sun) zips around the Sun in 88 days, but it takes the furthest planet, Pluto, 248 years to orbit the Sun. If there were a solid sphere of mass between the Sun and Pluto, than Pluto's orbital period would be the same as Mercury's. No one is suggesting that galaxies are actually solid spheres of matter, but there must be more mass in these galaxies then we can see. Because we can't see it, the mass is called dark matter.

Dark matter may account for up to 90% of the Universe's total mass. Bernard Sadoulet, who leads a search for dark matter at theCenter for Particle Astrophysics has stated that "Not only can we not see what most of the Universe is made of, we aren't even made of what most of the Universe is made of!" What did he mean by this? Scientists tend to categorize everything and matter is no
different. The matter you are familiar with, matter composed of neutrons and protons, is called baryonic matter. Non-baryonic matter also exists, but is generally difficult to detect. Professor Sadoulet's experiment is looking for exotic, non-baryonic particles called WIMPs. WIMP stands for Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. There is a great deal of theoretical work which suggests that WIMPs exist and probably account for a large fraction of dark matter.

If you don't believe that WIMPs exist, you aren't alone. But some sort of exotic non-baryonic dark matter is required for omega = 1. Big bang nucleosynthesis limits the total number of baryons to be a
fraction of the Universes total mass. And since there are compelling reasons to believe big bang nucleosythesis, and also that omega = 1, one is led to the conclusion that there must be exotic non-baryonic dark matter. Note the use of the word exotic. Neutrinos are another type of non-baryonic particle, but are not considered exotic. Neutrinos do exist, in huge numbers, but all known neutrinos have zero mass. The search continues for neutrinos with mass, but a massive neutrino is unlikely to completely account for the flat nature of galactic rotation curves. Hence, an exotic class of non-baryonic dark matter particle must exist if WIMPs do not.

There are several candidates for baryonic dark matter. MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo
Objects) are objects about the size of Jupiter. Jupiter is quite massive, but like all planets, does not emit any light of its own; it only reflects sunlight. Although we can see Jupiter quite well from Earth,
chances are that someone looking at our solar system from any far distance would not be able to see Jupiter. So, it is reasonable to assume that there are Jupiter-sized objects in other solar systems that we cannot see. By a technique known as micro-lensing, several MACHOs have already been found.
VMOs (Very Massive Objects) are about 100 times more massive than our Sun, which makes them very heavy indeed. They are likely to be found in the form of black holes. By the way, in case you're wondering whether the existence of many Earth-sized objects might account for all the dark matter, bear in mind that Jupiter is roughly 300 times more massive than Earth. Thus you would need so
many Earth-sized objects that the galaxy would be littered with them.

A Golden Age for Cosmology

These are exciting times for cosmologists. New telescopes, space missions, and experiments are generating data at an awesome rate, and new experiments are going online almost daily. The early part of the twenty-first century promises to be an amazing time for astrophysicists. And hopefully, we'll find answers to some of the big questions.

I don't remember everything I asked you and I'm also too lazy to look right now but one of my guestions was "If god created everything who created god?" Because, like you just said, if there's a worker behind every work, if there's a maker for everything made, if nothing is made by itself or by a chance then someone had to create him as well. There's no logic in that that he just excisted by himself. You just said it yourself.

*is mildly annoyed at Fazerina for getting there first*
Fair is fair...

I would ask this question but you and your before-me-ness asked it first...

*grumbles*

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Gluk Schmuck ]

lol :D Sorry Gluk. But this is really already a second time that I ask it from Pinky..

Your asking the wrong person. I don't know who made God.

If evolution is write, then what made the particles and atoms to make humans and animals then? What made the universe?

Your asking the wrong person. I don't know who made God.

If evolution is write, then what made the particles and atoms to make humans and animals then? What made the universe?

No No fa. I mean, nothing like the Earth or the universe can make it's self without a producer.

1. I was expecting you to say that God was always there or something similar, I underestimated your inteligence...

2. The theory of the Big Bang states, basically, that there was nothing then something. I don't fully understand how it works, neither can I even begin to comprehend the idea of omnipotence actually existing never mind an entity which has the power to actually create an omnipotent being.

3. Oh, by the way, thank you for showing your evidence.

All right, everybody. Pinky gave you the answer she promised. Enough is enough. After all, it doesn't have to be good evidence...

I thought you were smart enough to understand. I guess not.

How was I suppose to know what you meant? I'm not some fortune teller person.

And you claim that the evolution theory is just and you said that you fully don't understand it, why are you contradicting yourself?

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

First of all, I would like to thank you for finally answering the question I have been asking for months.

Secondly, I have answered every question you have asked of me before.

Now, on to the good stuff....

I would love to dissect your evidence piece by piece, but there is one overriding flaw in your argument, and that is really all I need to point out to invalidate everything you've said.

Your argument is based upon one lone assumption: that the Universe was made. This in itself is an incredible leap to make. After all, not everything that exists was made. It is common knowledge, for example, that Mountains are raised by Plate Tectonics, not by an intelligent force. The same could [and probably does, in my opinion] apply to the Universe.

However, to flesh out this post, and really give you something to aim at when you get your Random Insult Launcher out, I will elaborate, and run down various other reasons why I think you are wrong:

True, but as I have already pointed out, the Universe was not 'made'. It came into existence.

Of course Natural Forces can destroy, but they can also build. Intelligent Forces can also both build and destroy. What's your point?

Whoa... There's a lot of stuff to say about this one... 1) Beauty can exist independantly of Observation. Something is still beautiful, even if it has never been seen, and has therefore never aroused feelings. 2) Animals also feel. 3) What does this have to do with anything we've been talking about?

See what I said about Rule 1? Same applies here...

See just about everything I have ever posted to see why this is not necessarily true...

The "Rules" after that just get ridiculous, so I will refrain from comment on them. I will instead move on the the main bodies of text:

No, but nobody's claiming that it is. But that is because it is incredibly unlikely that atoms would ever spontaneously form into a computer. It is, however, far more likely, especially given the conditions of the early Universe, that subatomic particles would form into atoms, then into molecules. It's all about Probability.

See above. It's all about Forces and Probability. Besides, if our planet had formed any differently, we would have different veiws as to what Beauty is, NOT the other way round...

Like I say, it is all to do with probability. If, for example, you put Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulphor, and Phosphorous (the basic elements necessary to produce life) and ran an electric current through it, then eventually, after a few million years or so, you would probably produce Life. Scientists, however, want this all to happen faster, so they have to make sure that the correct reaction occurs first time, rather than going through lots of false starts, like it did in Nature. THAT is why they have to control everything. Clear?

It wasn't "done" by a "power". It happened. If you examine the forces at work in the early Universe, you'll realise that it was, in fact, almost inevitable...

Lighter things will always tend to orbit around heavier things. I don't know what grades you claim to get in Physics, but judging by this, they weren't very high...

Sorry to pick up on your poor grasp of the English Language again, but just look at this sentence!

This shows two things: a poor understanding of the History of the Universe [which we already knew about] and the fact that you never read our evidence [which we'd guessed about]...

So there we go. Pinky's Marvellous Theory, dissected before your eyes... :D

Pinky, (just to clear things up, not trying to change the subject:P) Gluk Schmuck said he couldn't begin to comprehend the idea. He never said he didn't understand it.

Ok, all i know so far is that Rettick and pinky r having an argument about evolution(i think), Rettick u asked her if she had any evidence or was it just blind old faith. This is what i think, if u have all the evidence u want how do u know that the evidence u have is real!? who said evidence is always right and always truthful.? Therefore even with the evidence u still could be making false statements about the topic.

*Claps for Surf's reply*

Ya know Surf man! How does he know?


Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct.

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."(Job 40:15-19) The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars - one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals certainly do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees! Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. This should not sound so strange. After all, God tells us that He created all the land animals on the 6th day of creation, the same day that he created mankind. Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There was never a time when dinosaurs ruled the earth. From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs.

Good link
another one

The Biblical book of "Job" also speaks of a fierce creature called:

The Leviathan

In Job 41:1-34" God speaks to Job and says:

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook, or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?
If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing him is false, the mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him.

Who then is able to stand against me? (this is God speaking to Job ) Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together, each so close to the next that no air can pass between. They are joined first to one another, they cling together and cannot be parted. His snorting throws out flashes of light, his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth, sparks of fire shoot out.

Smoke pours out from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. Strength resides in his neck, dismay goes before him. The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing. The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. Arrows do not make him flee: slingstones are like chaff to him. A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance. His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is his equal - a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud"

The Leviathan was a sea creature with the amazing ability to breathe fire. - This does not sound like any sea creature we have living today. What kind of animal was the leviathan?

Some people have suggested it may be a crocodile.

But we know this is not right. - Have you ever seen a crocodile shoot fire out of his mouth? I didn't think so...

The word that many bibles translate as "snorting" or "neezings" is the Hebrew word: "atish". This means to blow threw the nose.

The physical description of the Leviathan sounds like that of the "ancient" Kronosaur ( a short necked plesiosaur).

But what mystery does this creature hold within its body?

verse 31 mentions "ointment"
Amazingly all ancient ointment was made out of sulfur, one of the very ingredients needed to create a self contained fire.

"His wheezes throw out flashes of light"
Some Scientists believe that a few dinosaurs (like the Kronosaur) had an internal mechanism able to create a self contained spark or fire.

Is the Leviathan a whale?
The Bible tells us that the back of the leviathan:

"has rows of shields"
the word "shields" is sometimes translated scales. Which would exclude whales, which are mammals. The description also mentions Leviathans "limbs" which could indicate large paddle like flippers.

There are other Scientists who believe that some dinosaurs that lived on land like the Hadrosaur parasaurolphus could use a combination of chemicals mixed together to emit a flammable gas.

This sounds absurd, until you stop and think about the fact that even today, several animals are able to do this. Bombardier beetles are able to shoot sparks of fire out of their shells as a defense mechanism. A blast of irritating and odious gas is projected out of the beetles body. This gas is 212 degrees F. Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide are mixed together causing a small scale explosion. These chemicals are kept from exploding within the beetles own body, by the use of an inhibitor.

Beetles don't understand Chemistry, they only understand survival.

To believe that such a complex mechanism could develop by a chance random process like Evolution is absurd.

If just one part of this chamber developed before the other, then the beetle would blow himself up.

Such complex mechanisms are clearly the careful planning and design of an Intelligent Creator. Who not only designed the world, but foresaw the fall of Man and knew the effect sin would have on the fallen world. This Creator provided a way for species to survive no matter how their environment changed.

The leviathan is not a mythical animal. If a small creature (the bombardier beetle) can emit fire, then why can't a big creature (the kronosaur)?

From the description given in the Bible it is clearly a marine reptile like the Kronosaur.

We often object to ideas that are new to us. But our lack of knowledge of extinct animals, does not limit God's ability to create them with strange defense mechanisms.

The greatest evidence that the Leviathan is a real animal (one that emits combustible chemicals) is the fact that God Himself says it exists.
No other evidence is necessary to the believer.

But, for those who would like some more information, think of the many sea and marine creatures today that do similar things. Electric eels sound like creatures impossible to exist. Yet we are well aware of them.

Many fish even give off electric charges, while others glow in the dark.
Leviathan is not a crocodile, whale, or anything else. I believe from Job chapter 41 alone, that the Leviathan was a dinosaur (dragon).

I was happy to find another scripture in the bible to support my belief.

Psalm 74:13 speaks of Noah’s flood, and the animals that perished in the flood.

"Thou did divide the sea by your strength, you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You broke the head of Leviathan in pieces, and gave him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness. you did cleave the fountain and the flood, you dried up mighty rivers."
This verifies that Leviathan was in fact a dinosaur (dragon). Still alive at the time of the flood. Man is unable to kill Leviathan, but many men and animals were destroyed by God in the flood.

The fact that the entire world was covered by water is the best explanation as to why we find plesiosaurs (sea dwelling dinosaurs) fossilized in the middle of the United States.

Plesiosaur and Kronosaur.
The only explanation is that these states were once covered by water. And when they were, dinosaurs were still alive. Their "heads broken" and bodies buried by the rushing sediments of the flood.
The sea dwelling dinosaur Leviathan even lived after the flood. In a time when marine travel was increasing. The next scripture speaks of Leviathan in the days of sailing.

Psalm 104:24 says:

"Oh Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom have you made them all: the earth is full of your riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships, there is that leviathan whom you have made to play there."
Again, not only is leviathan used within the context of reality, but he exists with man. Not alleged ignorant cavemen, but men capable of building ships and other sea worthy vessels.

We are told that Leviathan "was made", it was Created by God. We are even told His purpose in Creating him. "to play" in the seas. This sharp contrast with how Gods original intent and lifestyle of this creature was effected by the entrance of sin and death into the world.

Another Dinosaur possibly able to emit fire is the Hadrosaur. The Hadrosaur is a land animal.

This creature had organs and bladders in its crests. The amazing design of these crests would allow the hadrosaur to create, store and eject flammable chemicals, to protect himself against predators.

There are many different kinds of hadrosaurs.
Here is a picture of the skull of a Hadrosaur Parasaurolophus.

In this cross section of it's the skull you can see the cavities.
It is sometimes hard to know what specific body parts were for, when all we know of a creature is based on its fossilized remains. For instance, if we had never seen a skunk but had found one fossilized, would we ever come to the conclusion that it smelled as awful as it does?

We wouldn't know that fireflies had the ability to cause their back ends to light up.

Or that a worm could re-grow a tail and even a head if cut in half? We would never guess such a thing.
In fact, anyone suggesting that they did so, would be considered foolish.
Yet this is repeatedly seen time and time again.

We wouldn't know that squid expelled ink or blowfish expand the way they do. Neither would we know about the amazing bombardier beetle that shoots fire.. We would pass off this story as a fairy tale. - Except that we have them living today.

The inside chambers of the hadrosaur parasaurolophus skull correlates immensely to the chambers of the bombardier beetle. This is not so unusual. They did after all have the same Creator.

Though it was a creature that Job knew well, I myself have never seen the Leviathan. I cannot say with absolute certainty that it is a Kronosaur.
But I can say for certain that the Leviathan is a dinosaur (dragon).
And the Kronosaur seems to fit this description best.

The eyewitness accounts of this dinosaur passed down generations later, may have been the basis for later "dragon" stories.

The cultures that no longer had a living creature that fit the description of these enormous dinosaurs, would later pass them off as being "mythical".

Some scientist states
"I would remove the bogus statements about kronosaurs, hadrosaurs, and parasaurolophus. You have a poor understanding of physiology and paleontloogy. For what other purposes might those large cavities serve? How many herbivorous fire-breathing animals do you see today? Foolishness."

Creationist Scientist:
I have a good understanding of the anatomy of these creatures which is why I postulate the ability of these creatures to have emited fire. I may be wrong about which creature it was, but the Bible tells us the creature is real, and did in fact exist with man. Science also tells us that this is within the realm of possibility.

It doesn't matter that we dont have any fire breathing animals today. Many animals simply went extinct after the flood. That doesn't mean they never existed. Lots of animals have abilities we do not understand. This shows how complex God's creation is.

Why would God create a fire breathing creature?

Question:
"What purpose would "fire breathing" have served such a grand creature as the leviathan? Was it mere show or could it have been beneficial (other than for protection or for killing, which would only have been needed after the introduction of sin)?"


Answer:
I don't think that Leviathan had the ability to emit fire from the beginning. I think that this occured as part of the Curse that God placed on the earth, and it is one of many harmful deteriorations (such as the sharp teeth in carnivores) which occured along with degeneration and loss of genetic information

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

1. But what if we flip Surfacing's reply round with 'Pinky' in place of 'Dan', how can we know that your evidence is true?
2. At least it makes sense
3. Exactly, we're not belivers.
"Think for yourself, question authority" Dr Timothy Leary
I am thinking for myself and I'm not convinced my your evidence. To me God doesn't exist so I can't trust 'him'.
4. So an animal gaining sharper teeth is a 'deterioration'. Some people might call that evolution.
"loss of genetic information"
That's what happens in evolution!

Anyway, if these animals had teeth adapted for eating plants before this 'sin', where are the fossils of them?

Oh, and why did God decide to make dinosaurs carnivorous just because some humans 'sinned'?

Pulls up sleeves I will explain that.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]

1. Ha, atleast I have real evidence that you can actually touch.

2. Evolution does not make sense.

3. I don't care if you not a believer, I am.

4.Yeah sure

5. That's what it is. Not evolution. You may notice that some T-Rex's don't have sharp teeth and some do. Some have teeth like herbivores so that proves everything. If evolution was so right, would'nt every T-Rex have sharp teeth?

6. God did not plan for sin to come into this world. Sin was entered from Adam and Eve and the temptation they experience from the Devil. Dinosaurs were originally loving creatures. No animal ate meat. God made things for love and not for hate and destruction. That's Lucifer's Job.

7. They did have fossils for them. Notice that the proof for evolution would of been dated in fossils. There's no proof of evolution in fossils that's what makes evolution false. They even found fossils that had dinosaurs in a "swimming positions" which might be evidence about the flood. I can post them.

8. The bible was witnessed by millions of people. Evolution, just by one guy named Charles Darwin. Millions beats one.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: PinkHaired Mudokon CWR ]