First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
The Universe, god can't have created it
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/5/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

why you guys always not make your post shor?t.


Because this is Extended Discussion, meaning that people are supposed to give extended, detailed, thoughtful responses. If you want something simple and short, go pick up a picture book.


why you guys always not make your post shor?t.

Or at least give some space before you posting?

Like What I did here?
Tl;dr.

it hurts our eyes
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/5/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:

why you guys always not make your post shor?t.

Or at least give some space before you posting?

Like What I did here?
Tl;dr.

it hurts our eyes


Because this is Extended Discussion, meaning that people are supposed to give extended, detailed, thoughtful responses. If you want something simple and short, go pick up a picture book.

Extended means drawn out in length, so this section is meant for long posts. No one's forcing you to read it.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/5/09 , edited 6/5/09

digs wrote:
I'll read them, but wikipedia isn't the best source and anyone can edit, so it's highly scientific unless you draw from the cited sources.

And we have never observed a planet or star being created, we have seen nebulas and figured one was being made, but we can't prove it and we haven't documented the creation of a planet. Here is a good site discussing some of the major flaws and holes within evolutionary and naturalistic explanations to the existence of the universe and the formation of things within the universe. http://creation.com/astronomy-and-astrophysics-questions-and-answers


Actually despite what people think wikipedia is actually a fairly reliable source, for example, if someone changes something on an article on trhe sun from : The sun a star, to : The sun is a ball of fire, someone else will come along and change it back to :The sun is a star, so it's fairly reliable.

And we have observed stars forming, it says so on the wiki page "Star formation" i linked you to, I'll quote it "The formation of indivudal stars can only be directly observed in our galaxy, but in distant galaxies star formation has been observed through its unique spectral signature"


More specifically, you might want to read this.

Some of the moons have so many craters that present processes cannot explain them, even using evolutionary time scales. An authoritative book said about Saturn’s moon Iapetus: ‘At estimated current rates it would require one thousand billion years to produce the crater density observed.’7 This implies that there must have been much higher, (i.e. catastrophic) rates of cratering in the past, which would explain how our moon, for example, can be only thousands of years old, yet have the craters it does.


The early universe was a very chaotic place, collosions big and small occured all the time


What could cause catastrophes in the solar system? First, a planet in the region between Mars and Jupiter is a possibility that has been suggested by many scientists, destroyed to produce the objects we now call the asteroids. A further possibility would be a cloud of solid debris from outside the solar system passing through the solar system.


A planet used to exist between mars and jupiter, it got desteroyed by something tho, and its not a could of solid debris passing through the solart system, its the other way around, the solar system is passing through the cloud of debris, as the solar system moves along as the galaxy spins, for example righty now our solar system is passing through the local bubble and also i berlieve the local fluff(local interstellar cloud)


A large collision in the region beyond Neptune would obviously produce many fragments that could take many different paths away from the impact. A few fragments could be ‘captured’ into orbit around a planet, for instance. Neptune’s moon Nereid seems to be a likely candidate for having been captured, because of its extremely elongated orbit.

Neptune’s rings have thick regions and thin regions. This unevenness means they cannot be billions of years old, since collisions of the ring objects would eventually make the ring very uniform. A collision near Neptune could lead to the destruction of one or more moons, as they were forced to pass too close to the planet. At a certain distance near a planet, known as the Roche limit, an object can be literally pulled apart by gravity. This could explain at least some of the rings of the planets, especially those of Neptune. One major collision event could cause a number of other collisions, capture, or breakup events.


The unstable form of neptunes rings could be due to the gravitational force of the moons which are very close to the rings.


The moons of Jupiter, studied by the Galileo mission, display a surprising mix of ‘old’ and ‘young’ features. Using the assumption of uniformity (i.e. that cratering rates have always been more or less the same) older objects should be more heavily cratered than young ones. Yet here we find the moon Callisto, which is the most heavily cratered object known in the solar system, and its sister moon Europa, with the smoothest surface of all.8 Although Europa’s craters may have been filled with ice, the heavier cratering on Callisto could be the result of regional catastrophic events, with both moons the same age.

Another Jovian moon, Io, surprised astronomers by indications of volcanic activity. Such a body, much smaller than the earth, should have long ago lost all its internal heat, if it was billions of years old. So in line with the ‘old ages’ idea, a complex model was developed in which Jupiter’s gravity rhythmically ‘squeezes’ Io to keep heating it by friction. However, this heat from Jupiter’s gravity cannot account for all the heat coming from Io and its volcanoes. This points to Io being young, not billions of years old.


Or it just means some of the moons are more recently captured than others, if you think abnout it like that, then it makes sense.


Problems for evolution
The accepted evolutionary view of the origin of the solar system is usually called the Nebular Hypothesis. In this model, a giant cloud in space made up of mainly spinning, ionized gas with a magnetic field is believed to have pulled together by gravity into the sun, planets and other objects in our solar system. Computer simulations of this process do not start with initial conditions like those of real nebulas, and have other problems. One scientist summarized these by saying ‘The clouds are too hot, too magnetic, and they rotate too rapidly.’9 The contraction produces effects that tend to make the formation of planets impossible.10 One scientist described the Nebular Hypothesis as the theory with the ‘best fit’ to the observational evidence. However, he then stated that: ‘The argument is highly speculative and some of it borders on science fiction.’11

There is a particularly thorny problem for evolutionary solar system models. Everyone has watched accomplished skaters spin on ice. As skaters pull their arms in, their radius decreases and they spin faster. This effect is due to what physicists call the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. In the formation of our Sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would occur as the gases contracted into the centre to form the Sun. This would cause the sun to spin very rapidly as a result of this law. Actually, our sun spins very slowly while the planets move very rapidly around the sun.12 This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the Nebular Hypothesis. Many scientists today no doubt assume that modern theories have solved this problem. But a well-known solar system scientist Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, ‘The ultimate origin of the solar system’s angular momentum remains obscure’.13


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation <-- Read

There is a competing evolutionary model for the origin of the solar system, called the Capture Theory. In this, a passing protostar, loosely held together, passes close to our Sun whose gravity pulls off a filament of the star’s material, which breaks up into segments that become six planets (not the current nine). Then two of these six collide and the asteroids, Venus, Earth, Mars, and our Moon represent either fragments of the collision or moons of the two planets that collided.14 The Capture Theory is considered unlikely by most astronomers and has unique problems of its own. Interestingly, today some catastrophes are being invoked to explain the solar system.

Well i guess that's possible, unlikely tho, stars that get too close tend to eat each other, sometimes resulting in a nova/supernova.


Dr Jonathan Henry, who teaches science at Clearwater Christian College, believes the solar system evidence to be consistent with a universal catastrophe, which he associates with God’s curse on all creation (Genesis 3). Dr Henry postulates that this was when (initially rapid) radioactive and other decay processes (including of planetary magnetic fields) began. This led to enormous interior heating and volcanism. By this approach, the asteroids would be the remnants of the disintegration of a planet from such internal overheating.15 This heating could have been a trigger of some processes in the Flood of Noah. It is also possible that some asteroids were created as they are and some are the result of collisions. A solar-system-wide bombardment event of some kind would explain widespread cratering within a young universe.

Christians should welcome the flow of new discoveries in space which, stripped of their evolutionary assumptions, continually highlight the incredible greatness and creativity of our God.


The common belief on how the solar system formed is that it was triggered by a nearby supernova or several supernova, which would put tidal stresses on the nebula it came from and could trigger a star and planets to form.


Anti-theists are fond of dismissing the sun as a run-of-the-mill star in a not-too-special place in a galactic spiral arm. It is true that many stars are far bigger and brighter than the sun. However, saying that bigger stars are more important is as illogical as saying that a 7–foot man is more important than a 5–foot woman.


The bigger type O and B stars have mjuch much stroger stellar winds, and thus never have planetary systems, hell even stars in the vinicity of a type O or B star doesn't form planetary systems


Recent research has called the sun ‘exceptional’.2 Our sun is among the top 10% (by mass) of stars in its neighbourhood.2 It is actually an ideal size to support life on earth. There would be little point in having a red supergiant star like Betelgeuse, because it is so huge that it would engulf all the inner planets! Nor would we want a star like the blue-white supergiant Rigel, 25,000 times as bright as the sun, and emitting too much high-frequency radiation. Conversely, a star much smaller than our sun would be too faint to support life, unless the planet were so close to the star that there would be dangerous gravitational tides.
[
Actually, out sun being a main sequence star, will be shortly killing all life on earth, as it proceeds on with the fusing of hydrogen, it slowly becomes more lumninous and hotter, thus in about a billion years, the suns increased output will raise the surface temp of earth to that above the boiling point of water, and thus all the liquid water, oceans ect, will boil off into the atmosphere, last time i checked, life on earth needs liuquid water, so you do the math.


The sun is in an ideal environment. It is a single star—most stars exist in multiple-star systems. A planet in such a system would suffer extreme temperature variations. The sun’s position in our spiral Milky Way Galaxy is also ideal. Its orbit is fairly circular, meaning that it won’t go too near the inner galaxy where supernovae, extremely energetic star explosions, are more common.2 It also orbits almost parallel to the galactic plane—otherwise, crossing this plane would be very disruptive.2 Furthermore, the sun is at an ideal distance from the galactic centre, called the co-rotation radius. Only here does a star’s orbital speed match that of the spiral arms—otherwise the sun would cross the arms too often and be exposed to supernovae.


Actually like i said before, our sun is not an ideal star for life, it is a type GV star, aka a Yellow Dwarf, yellow dwarfs are not perfect for life because3 of their rather short main sequence, They only fuse hydrogen for 10 billion years, an ideal star for life, would be a Orange dwarf, as they stay main sequence fo9r far longer, 10 - 30 billion years, life on a planet orbiting a orange dwarf, has longer to evolve and advance before its star sweels into a red giant and consumes the planet, so no the sun is not a truly ideal star for life, as our star only has 1 billion years to go before it killls off life here.

Our sun is a powerful object, often throwing out flares, and every few years (usually around sunspot maximum—Sunspots, Galileo and heliocentrism), more violent ejections called coronal mass ejections (see photo, left). They cause huge electric currents in earth’s upper atmosphere and disrupt power grids and satellites. In 1989, one disabled a power grid in northern Quebec. But the sun turns out to be an ‘exceptionally stable’3 star. Three astronomers recently studied single stars of the same size, brightness and composition of the sun. Almost all of them erupt about once a century in superflares 100 to 100 million times more powerful than the one that blacked out Quebec. If the sun were to erupt in such a superflare, it would destroy earth’s ozone layer, with catastrophic results for life.4

A nearby supernova could kill all life on earth with the radation it would bombard the planet with.

Evolutionists and Naturalists like to push the Nebular hypothesis, the Big Bang model, and other theories as facts that prove that the universe came to existence through natural and sometimes catastrophic processes. These things aren't fact.

The nebuar hypothesis and expically the big bang model, have ample evidence to support them, the big bang has many many mountains of evidence to back it up, your creationist crap, has none. Creationism never happened. Besides it's already been proved that the earth is billions of years old, thats been proved, So there is no unproving it.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 6/5/09 , edited 6/5/09
"God creating everything in 7 days" is a myth.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/5/09
How do you that's a myth?
1114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Canda
Offline
Posted 6/8/09
This is what a galaxy looks like. Our sun, doesnt even measure up to a pixel

only a mere little GALAXY!!! and our sun isnt even a pixel in the photo

our solar system is near the edge
do you think that if god made this galaxy, he would make the edge first??
it would make more sense to create the inner, more larger stars first

Answer : God created the other things in the world because he wanted us to discover the creation of the universe and enjoy it. Also according to Genesis, God created Humans last. Why did he do this? He created humans last because, he loved us and wants to give us everything in the world to enjoy.

These are SOME of our solar system's planets
the distance inbetween the planets can not be shown
because if it were shown, you would not be able to see earth AT ALL

we are on the 3rd planet closest to the sun
do you think that if god made this solar system, he would make 3rd planet first??
would it not make sense if he made the sun first

Answer: ( same answere as the one above)

Now imagine the size of our solar system
if a earth was a tennis ball
our solar system would be the size of a small country

Now Imagine the size of our galaxy
it takes light over 12000years to travel the diameter of our galaxy
(this means the galaxy is over 12000years old for us to beable to see light from the stars)

Answer: And what does this have to do with anything?

Now knowing how large and enormous one galaxy is
know that it has been calculated that there are over 500 BILLION GLAXIES in the universe
if there was a god, he would have long forgotten us, because we are so insignificant, that we have no impact on the continual changes and progess of the galaxy or our universe
We can never effect our galaxy or the universe, we mean nothing
We do not need to be created by someone, because that someone would have needed to be created

Answer: God has not forgotten us, because he is ommnipresence (which means that he exists out of time and space, and can be anywhere at anytime, lets say there was another planet just like us, god would still remember both of us, because he is in 2 different places in the same time). According to Pascals wager that who created god. ( look at this http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/11897 It takes too long for me to explain here)

Finaly, imagine how many planets there are
and how many can support life
what are the other planets?? failed projects to build a habitat??
NO they are not, if there are billions of planets, atleast one of them would be able to support life

Answer: Look above my answer is the same thing

But sorry sir i have to say this, but your argument is proven wrong...

55381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/10/09 , edited 6/10/09

zword70 wrote:
Answer : God created the other things in the world because he wanted us to discover the creation of the universe and enjoy it. Also according to Genesis, God created Humans last. Why did he do this? He created humans last because, he loved us and wants to give us everything in the world to enjoy.

Answer: God has not forgotten us, because he is ommnipresence (which means that he exists out of time and space, and can be anywhere at anytime, lets say there was another planet just like us, god would still remember both of us, because he is in 2 different places in the same time). According to Pascals wager that who created god. ( look at this http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/11897 It takes too long for me to explain here)

But sorry sir i have to say this, but your argument is proven wrong...



As to the first quoted part it's rather conceited what about the other animals? Did god not give them everything in the world too? Also seeing the creation of the universe is what christianity is against, well the scientific view anyways, the creationist view, while technically proven wrong by the existence of life before man (Dinosaurs etc), is also not completely improbable.

The second answer proves nothing, i read the post you linked, the arguement is simply based on chance and had you read the follow up to your post you'd find the author is discredited quickly and throughly on almost all of his points. I do agree that god could keep track of 2 worlds and i applaud your open mindedness to other planets having life. One question i do have is if god exists outside of space and time then how can you claim he exists when we are ourselves currently limited to existing within those constraints. We can't prove things outwith that reach at least not yet anyway.

Finally your last little bit is funny because you can't prove god exists anymore than i can prove he doesn't. There is no 'proof' either way. God's are based on belief, there has never been any evidence except people in a book or telling stories like the ones of jesus and making claims it was the work of god. People can lie you know... it's the one fundamental fact people overlook in religion. I can claim that i met god and he told me the whole universe was a joke, will that be added to the bible and believed? Just to be clear thats not an attack on god, religion or you, it's just my opinion. I agree this threads author has made a few mistakes but there are some good points too.

Just a fun little last thought if you decide to question why people would lie about such things, it's simple. Everyone wants future generations to think their life was exciting and meaningful.
46551 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / demon world/spiri...
Offline
Posted 6/11/09
really??
1429 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Netherland Antilles
Offline
Posted 7/6/09
Maybe we were his favorite galaxy and favorite edge ^^
2693 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / guess where
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
we don't know anything...there are a lot of other illogical things in this world that do happen, right? try explaining dreams. okay, think like a god now if you can.
237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Pittsburgh
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
If God is infinite, then it doesn't matter at all how big the universe is
1673 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 7/7/09

daramarie1 wrote:

If God is infinite, then it doesn't matter at all how big the universe is



infinite is a measure of dimensions
and as alot of you religious people have said
"god isn't affected be any dimensions, he's omnipresent"

which is pretty close to nonexistence if u ask me
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 7/7/09 , edited 7/7/09


Daniel9878 wrote:


daramarie1 wrote:

If God is infinite, then it doesn't matter at all how big the universe is



infinite is a measure of dimensions
and as alot of you religious people have said
"god isn't affected be any dimensions, he's omnipresent"

which is pretty close to nonexistence if u ask me


It because God is Creator, not a creation
Of course, He is different from us. Beyond all of us

If this perfectly universe didn't made by someone superior than us, then who?
Natural phenomenon or random chance?

If some unknown and random made this universe.
It won't be strange if the Earth will gone to different way of its rotation.
It even could be gone away from suns, which will caused all species on the earth die
237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Pittsburgh
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
Daniel9878 wrote:

" infinite is a measure of dimensions
and as alot of you religious people have said
"god isn't affected be any dimensions, he's omnipresent"

which is pretty close to nonexistence if u ask me . "


Infinite is not a "measure" of dimension, it means beyond dimension.
Take three numbers: Infinity 14,587,256, 233, 111, 097, 555 , 1
Since "infinite" is immeasurabe, both 14,587,256, 233, 111, 097, 555 and 1 are equally small in comparison to "infinite." That is what I mean. Of course, if you go on like, only something that has physical dimensions exists then only the physical universe exists, but that's another opinion than that God cannot have created the universe because it's so big
4408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Cavite, Philippines
Offline
Posted 7/7/09
I've remembered something funny, if "god" can create the whole universe and the billions of stars just for our enjoyment then why can't he feed the hungry, shelter the poor, end wars and make this world a better place? "god" is so damn great!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.