Big Bang remnant discovery

[acies]

i said the earth is younger then what most people say.

:blink: The accepted age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Do think that is incorrect??

[JasonC]

Well, you know I do... ;)

[megamanXplosion]

Anyone who thinks the age of the Earth is significantly younger than ~4.5 billion years old, should order this book and read it: http://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Dalrympl...6013&sr=8-1

[acies]

Well, you know I do... ;)

But there really isn't a valid answer as to why :sleep:

[CelticWhisper]

Use your brain (JasonC).

He's a Creationist. Let's not ask the impossible here.

[Andre S. Veteran]

He's a Creationist. Let's not ask the impossible here.

That kind of comment... (refrains from saying something inappropriate) is not needed. Learn that most people who "believe in evolution" just like most who "believe in creationism" can't justify those beliefs in any valid way other than relying on some figure of authority, be it a magazine, their parents, most of their friends or some ideology that looks to fit well with one or the other theory. (Although yes, creationism isn't really a "theory").

I just grow tired of this self-glorification just because one adheres to the mainstream scientific theories, I mean ****, your opinions are maybe better informed but not by much, unless you have a degree in biology, and then again some highly educated persons are creationists. So respect other people's opinions, bring arguments if you have them, but please stop your bragging you're just making yourself look stupid.

PS: No I don't support the idea of creationism, at least not the litteral interpretation of Genesis.

[SoCalledChaos]

Science = based on facts.

Religion = based on stories

[JasonC]

He's a Creationist. Let's not ask the impossible here.

I could say this about evolution...but im not going to, because im a nice guy.

Science = based on facts. Unprovable facts

Religion = based on stories Faith.

Corrected.

[kernatch]

JasonC, what are the basic principles of evolution by natural selection?

[SoCalledChaos]

Quote - (CelticWhisper @ Dec 6 2007, 19:39) *

He's a Creationist. Let's not ask the impossible here.

I could say this about evolution...but im not going to, because im a nice guy.

Quote - (SoCalledChaos @ Dec 6 2007, 23:03) *

Science = based on facts. provable facts

Religion = based on Hope.

Corrected.

Corrected again

[acies]

Science = based on facts. Unprovable facts

Religion = based on stories Faith.

Corrected.

LOL, That really demonstrates exactly how much you know (no offence). Again, I think you have this idea that science is some kind of cult.

[brentaal]

Corrected.

Says someone who admitted he wasn't thaught science in school, and hasn't done any research whatsoever on it. Way to go for being ignorant.

[Berserk87]

:blink: The accepted age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Do think that is incorrect??

under 10,000

[JasonC]

Says someone who admitted he wasn't thaught science in school, and hasn't done any research whatsoever on it. Way to go for being ignorant.

You are doing my flipping head in!!!

You have been twisting everything I said in a few of my posts in different topics.

I said "I don't think I was ever taught the so called big bang and evolution theories..."

I never denied taking science, because I did take science, I enjoyed it too.

Before you post a reply aimed at me...Get your eyes checked out to make sure you get what I said right!

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

...

Corrected.

You know saying it's unproven doesn't actually get rid of the facts, right?

I can say i can fly, doesn't make it so.

under 10,000

Explain the Stone Age (it began around 10,000 years ago)

[MightyJordan]

Seriously, Read the first book in your Bible man, Genesis 1, 1....

That's fiction, though. We have no proof that "God" even existed. Or Jesus.

The theory of evolution makes a lot more sense than "God". Mankind probably were descended from apes. Check out KoRn's "Evolution" music video:

. It might seem a bit stupid, but it raises serious points in the world today.

[JasonC]

Your saying the Bible is fiction, God says the Bible is sharper than a 2 edged sword.

Saying our ancestors was apes is ridiculous!

Did you know that one of "Korns" members converted to Christian ????

[MGS4-SS]

Your saying the Bible is fiction, God says the Bible is sharper than a 2 edged sword.

Saying our ancestors was apes is ridiculous!

Did you know that one of "Korns" members converted to Christian ????

This is relevant because?

[JasonC]

Oh, Im sorry for replying to someone else who brought Korn into this!

[acies]

Your saying the Bible is fiction, God says the Bible is sharper than a 2 edged sword.

You have to consider that god could just be a voice inside your head, hence not a reliable source.

Saying our ancestors was apes is ridiculous!

Why?? The evidence is there.

[JasonC]

Where ?

[vincent]

under 10,000

Explain the Uranium isotope then....

[brentaal]

Where ?

For starters, check this, under References.

But I have to disappoint you, it can't be summed up in one single sentence like Creationism.

[CelticWhisper]

Your saying the Bible is fiction, God says the Bible is sharper than a 2 edged sword

And I say that God is a filthy, stinking, lying con-man with a personal vested interest in actually having people believe that tripe, and that in any decently-run universe he'd have been brought up on charges of existential fraud eons ago.

Or, alternatively, my personal god (note the lowercase "g," but then does it really matter?) says that the bible is a work of literature, nothing more and nothing less. Are you claiming your god is more right and more valid than mine? I thought you said it was important to have a personal relationship with the lord. What if (G|g)od is telling me something different than he's telling you? And there we have it again...divine con-man.

The point I'm trying to make here is that while divinity, if it exists, is steeped in uncertainty and hearsay, science offers observable, quantifiable evidence that something did or did not happen. Of course science is not infallible, of course it's not absolute. But the point a lot of people miss is that it's okay to admit to being wrong and, more importantly, there's no shame in admitting you don't know something for sure. The very foundation of science is the fact that we don't know things and thus set out to learn them. If we knew everything we would have no need for science. But we don't, so we do.

On being wrong: maybe my ad-hominem a few posts up was harsh and uncalled-for. If so, I was wrong to make it, and I apologize. However that does not excuse the intellectually-dishonest practice of refusing to acknowledge (not-just-a) theory based on observable conditions and patterns in favor of obsolete mythology that was written before such knowledge was attained.

And so I ask you: What's the more intellectually honest thing to do? To admit you don't know how the universe started, or to cover it up with mythology to sound like you know more than you actually do?

Or fine, forget honesty. Explaining away the mysteries of life with mythology is just plain lazy. It takes no effort to look at something you don't understand, say that a divine entity was responsible for it, and go back to your Saturday morning cartoons. Conversely, it takes a lot of effort to look at something you don't understand, realize that there's something to be learned, and then go about studying it to find out its properties, behaviours, origins, etc. Even more effort still to take your findings, document them, and then integrate them with other scientific knowledge to understand how they fit into the big picture, and maybe even understand that big picture itself a little better.

And coming back to the topic at hand (because this thread's already teetering on one rail), that's exactly what's going on here. A piece of the puzzle has fallen into place and we can use this "texture" to help build our understanding of the origin of the universe as we know it. Maybe a hundred or a thousand years from now, something will happen or a discovery will be made that proves this "texture" irrelevant, or that proves the entire Big Bang theory inaccurate. Or maybe not. The beauty of science is that we are free to find out, and to enjoy all the excitement that comes with new knowledge. I, for one, want in. If God doesn't like it, too bad for God. He can come down here and express his displeasure to my face if it's that important, but I still won't care.

[kernatch]

Saying our ancestors was apes is ridiculous!

hey

i asked you earlier if you could explain to me the basic mechanisms of evolution but you ignored me :(

it appears your main objection to evolution is the idea that humans share a common ancestor with apes (widely accepted in evolutionary biology). in fact, we are still classed as apes! but what's a word? more specifically the claim that i think you disagree with is that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. it might surprise you but most evolutionary biologists also think we have a common ancestor with ALL living species. similarly to how you believe all humans have two common ancestors - adam and eve - evolutionary biologists think all current life descended from one initial life form - probably unlike anything that is alive today.

but wait. if we want to talk about evolution, we shouldn't first jump to the notion of common ancestry. that's getting way ahead of ourselves. let's first look at some of the basic principles of evolution:

1. there are variations within a population (simple example: some people are short and some people are small)

2. at least some of these variations are hereditary (i.e. you get those features from your parents)

3. some variations provide a survival benefit (e.g. an insect that lives in grass will camouflage better if it's green than if it were blue, so green insects have a better chance at surviving in this situation).

4. the more chance of survival you have, the more likely you are to have kids - and more of them, too.

you should now understand the importance of point 2. a parent's offspring are likely to have the same variation that helped the parent survive. 'bad' variations are less likely to spread within a population because the those that have it are less likely to have kids and pass it on. makes sense doesn't it? this is the theory of natural selection, and was first proposed by charles darwin 150 years ago. does he really deserve your demonisation?

now, evolution is a massive topic and i could only wish to lightly scratch the surface with this post. i just wanted to give you a brief introduction to it, because i think its a topic you've somehow missed out on. you probably have loads of questions in your head: how can little changes in variation lead to massive differences (such as the one between trees and humans)? how can complex things like the eye evolve? and so on. well, i will gladly try to help you with these questions, but if you're really interested in broadening your understanding of evolution i can also recommend some websites and books to read. :)