Wow, and this topic hasn't even existed for a month.

RedTheGreen, as I read the post you posted after my last post I posted here then I feel like you expect to see MOM talking like he is the God for you... Ridiculous

No offence, but I find it curious how to say "the God" as opposed to "God". Is that a mistake, or do you mean to do so?

I am very confuse.

Does Latvian have definite articles? Some languages (especially Latin-derived) don't.

ŁĀMĒ

Wait what's going on?

Gooey Goo seems to have found out how to type non-Latin characters. Did you intend that to be pronounced "LH-AH-MAY"? (the "lh" being a voiceless L)

Łāddęr
Råñdöm

Nah, just ignore my post... I don't think I understood it by my self but lets not talk about it. And gooey this is not a chat so don't make any stupid words. But I got some of your written words in my language like: ā and ē

Wïkî įß æ dó-dø

ok is everyone alright?
the site had technical problems

Yeah, the site was down an I had the great idea to email david... at his goofans.com domain, so he didn't answer me until the site was back up, he said the MySQL server was misbehaving.

Momo: Uh... Ok how bout a new controversial topic!!

THE BIG BANG THEORY!!

I believe the Big bang theory never happened. Period. Below I'll list some scientific contradictions that prove it:

1. First of all, how did the matter for the big bang get there? Simply impossible to have it just appear there. Scientifically, as the first law of thermodynamics says: Matter cannot BE CREATED OR DYSTROYED

2. How can something standing still just randomly explode? THAT GOES AGAINST NEWTON'S LAW OF INERTIA!! An object in motion stays in motion AND AN OBJECT AT REST STAYS AT REST UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN OUTSIDE FORCE!

What do you guys think eh?

Also, most people think that there was a singularity the moment before. Density = mass / volume = (a big number) / 0 = ???

Sigh... the laws of physics probably didn't apply at the moment the Big Bang happened (at least not normally). The universe was not a point that was standing there for ages, it exploded at the moment it existed.

Also, you say matter cannot be created or destroyed; so how'd the universe start in the first place? It must have started somehow, unless you say that it existed forever, and if that's the case the Big Bounce is probably true, due to the expansion of the universe. And that would include a Big Bang.

But hey, God (or whatever you choose to call it) would have had the power to create matter, it wouldn't be restricted by petty laws of physics. Even if it was, without matter there's no physics, and therefore laws of physics can't restrict the creation of it.

Or it could have been created from energy.

But where'd the ENERGY come from? You run into circular logic no matter how you try to explain it.

That's why we shouldn't. Or at least, not completely. I don't think humans will ever discover the true nature of the universe, at least not while they're alive.

Which is why evolution can't be! If those theorys are disproved, and the basis of evolution are those theorys, then BAM! NO BASIS FOR EVOLUTION!!

Unless God created the universe, in which case ALL of the 1st chapter of genesis is true and that's the correct basis!

Wait...the basis of the theory of evolution is the Big Bang?

Lold.

@Gooballs: Evolution has already practically been proven. It's both widely-believed and has tons of proof to back it up. Genetic mutations happen all the time, and if it's a good one, the offspring will continue the mutation. That's what evolution is, but over a much longer period of time.

tl;dr See note at bottom below line

Lold.

Majority doesn't rule in science. In fact, it's a good thing for you that it doesn't, otherwise macroevolutionists would be outnumbered.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious#Religious_movements for some statistics - granted, some of these probably believe in macroevolution, but 77-99% is kinda a high number)

There's a rather large difference between evidence and proof. I thought we were on the same page here, too; both sides look at evidence in entirely different ways, so what seems like proof to one side looks like a weak argument to the other.

I would call "all the time" one out of ten or so, but mmkay.

I find it interesting that in real life, a lot of genetic mutations are heralded as problems rather than progress. A lot of them end up in places like Ripley's Believe it or Not, rather than being heralded as brilliant advances of evolution. If someone is born with an abnormal growth out of the side of their head, the parents are more likely to remove the growth than sit back and think "Oh, well this means that over the next few million years, his offspring will grow bigger and bigger brains so that humanity can evolve to the next state." Nobody I've seen thinks that way. And a lot of such cases are treated as genetic disorders, rather than improvements. I went to Ripley's Believe it or Not once, and I was struck by how all the two-faced kittens, three-legged men, and five-footed cows all died very early compared to typical lifespans. These mutations that seemingly added genetic information made the animals and people die younger also. I've personally yet to see a mutation that's actually good, but on the flip side, there are quite a lot of bad mutations, like cancer and Down Syndrome.

But ignore this argument. This doesn't prove anything. Personally, I could care less if people find some "good" genetic mutations. Even ones that aren't debatable and analyzed to death, like Lucy and others I've heard about. That's not the point at all. The point is that if macroevolution really caused animals to turn into other animals very slowly through gradual mutations over millions of years, then where the cucumber are all the fossils? Scientists have found billions of fossils over the past few decades, and literally millions of them should be "missing links" if macroevolution happens gradually. Where are all of the millions of missing links? One or two stray cases prove nothing at all.

Not always; and a lot of times not at all. That's just not how genetics works. Sometimes mutations are one-time hiccups that never occur again, and other times, because of dominant and recessive genes, it takes a while for the mutation to happen again. Two people with the same recessive gene have to have kids; and then the possibility of the mutation happening again is only 25%. I know of a guy who was born mutated without arms or legs, and his daughter looks 100% normal.

---------------------------------------------------

tl;dr version: What looks like an obvious fact to one person is utterly laughable to another. Put a smiley face at the end of each sentence above and have one on me ^^. But please, please don't make assumptions about what's "proven" or "disproven" scientifically, because a lot of "proof" boils down to opinion. Somewhere, something out in perfectly plain sight probably proves God does or doesn't exist, but nobody's ever going to notice it, and if someone does, everyone else will laugh at them. Humanity has been arguing about this very topic for the past few thousand years (or millions, if you believe humans have been around that long), very scientifically, I might add, and as far as I know, nobody's proven anything yet. Science can't change attitudes; people can. Everyone can throw around arguments and counterarguments all they want, but generally they just get tired and frustrated by the endless debates.

Gah, this tl;dr version got tl;dr. Sorry. I'll stop walloftexting now.

I totally agree with your points. This post:

This was posted by my good pal, chewyfungus. Although I agree with his views I disagree with the way he argued them. And even though I only read your tl;dr paragraph, I think you have some excellent points and I think you're the kind of person I would avoid arguing with just for the work of it.

Ah, gotcha. I was wondering why you changed tune all of a sudden. Lawl. No worries.

Meh, I think if there was an easy way out of this argument, it would have been over centuries ago. Bottom line: I still believe what I did, and so do you.

stuff doesn't just randomly explode for no reason at all. that only happens in bad movies.

which would be harder to comprehend: the universe is infinite or that there is an end to the universe?

Both. If the universe is infinite, how? If it's finite, what's beyond it? They're practically the same thing, in terms of comprehension.

I said that the laws of physics wouldn't apply at that moment. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, and there probably wasn't any life for years after the Big Bang.

Which raises the question of when life started. I'm just curious here; haven't heard much about the evolutionary theories behind that.

I think the universe is finite but is in constant expansion due to the big bang/big bounce. Beyond it? Void. Is that so hard to imagine?