Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 03:34 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 01:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 07:37 AM
New Britain
June 20, 2025, 09:26 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
June 18, 2025, 09:24 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 11:23 PM
Is Iran/Persia going to b...
by zeca
June 17, 2025, 10:20 PM
News From Syria
June 17, 2025, 05:58 PM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 17, 2025, 10:47 AM
ماذا يحدث هذه الايام؟؟؟.
by akay
June 02, 2025, 10:25 AM
What happens in these day...
June 02, 2025, 09:27 AM
What's happened to the fo...
June 01, 2025, 10:43 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)

 (Read 19380 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #60 - June 02, 2009, 08:29 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 05:35 PM
    None, which is why the original primordial particle wasn't spinning according to Big Bang Theory.  I asked you for a citation to support your assertion to the contrary, did you find one yet?

    Many external forces would be present during the formation of a solar system - gravitational pull between all the different bodies present, and numerous collisions with the various junk floating around space.

    I do hope you don't mimic convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind when you do your tax returns as faithfully as you do with your attempt to debunk the Big Bang.




    How do you know it wasnt spinning?? That so called change came about in recent years. Before then it was always though to be spinning, it was only after the absurdidy of it all was pointed out, did they change the theory again.  Cry But hey thats common practice in the "assumption" of science.

    Heres a blurb for ya.

    Quote
    On page 61 of the 1992 Edition ?Prentice Hall General Science? textbook it states.

    ?Most scientists believe that 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason this region exploded. This explosion is called the Big Bang.?

    In this at least there is matter to begin with.

    On page 69 the book states that ?as the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster.


    OOHHHHH, look at what we teach the little ones.  Roll Eyes so sad really. Also Big Bang has been on its way out anyway, just to many problems.  Cheesy
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #61 - June 02, 2009, 08:30 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 08:14 PM
    The cat is a star.


    How do we get stars?
    Quote
    Now, let's recap, to save Shaneequa ploughing through the whole thread.  Dok contended that the Big Bang theory cannot be true because if it were the solar systems would all be revolving in the same direction, and so would everything in them, because the Law of Angular Momentum would dictate that they would all have to revolve in the same direction that the primordial particle revolved in before the explosion.


    Thank you for recapping.

    Quote
    This has been debunked on the following grounds...

    1)  The primordial particle did not spin.


    What did it do? From where did it come?

    Quote
    2)  The Big Bang was not an explosion.


    What was it?

    Quote
    3)  The Law of Angular Momentum only applies in the absence of an external force acting on the object in question.


     Huh? I'm have trouble with this one.

    Quote
    4)  The formation of solar systems and planets happened much much much later than the Big Bang,


    I thought you said there was no big bang.

    Quote
    and in the intervening years many external forces came into play.


    Like what?

    Quote
    Do you believe that all other species on earth evolved in the way I described on page 1 of this thread?  And what kind of "variations" do you think the human race has undergone? 

     Smiley


    I'll start with this: We are not nearly as healthy or intelligent as Adam and Eve...the only exception would be King Solomon. God made him the wisest man that ever lived...and he came long after Adam and Eve. 
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #62 - June 02, 2009, 08:34 PM
    Quote
    How do you know it wasnt spinning?? That so called change came about in recent years. Before then it was always though to be spinning, it was only after the absurdidy of it all was pointed out, did they change the theory again.  Cry But hey thats common practice in the "assumption" of science.

    Heres a blurb for ya.


    It was never thought to be spinning, Dok, any more than it was ever thought to be an explosion.  The theory itself excludes the possibility of the primordial particle spinning because, according to Big Bang theory, there would be no outside forces to give it momentum to spin. 

    Your blurb is meaningless without providing a link I can click on.  Without that, for all I know you made that passage up in your head - or more likely, you copy and pasted it from a creationist web site, who in turn quote mined it like they usually do.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #63 - June 02, 2009, 08:36 PM
    Quote
    I'll start with this: We are not nearly as healthy or intelligent as Adam and Eve...the only exception would be King Solomon. God made him the wisest man that ever lived...and he came long after Adam and Eve.


    So do you believe that other species evolved in the way I said on page 1, or not?  Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.  Just answer the question, please.  If you do, I'll address yours.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #64 - June 02, 2009, 08:40 PM
    The cat is a particle in a "cloud" of matter that later on becomes the planets.

    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 08:30 PM
    with this: We are not nearly as healthy or intelligent as Adam and Eve...the only exception would be King Solomon. God made him the wisest man that ever lived...and he came long after Adam and Eve. 


    See. There you have a contradiction. Did Solomon invent lol cats? No, he didn't. So he cannot have been te wisest man to ever live. q.e.d
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #65 - June 02, 2009, 08:44 PM
    Quote from: dok on June 02, 2009, 08:29 PM
    How do you know it wasnt spinning?? That so called change came about in recent years. Before then it was always though to be spinning, it was only after the absurdidy of it all was pointed out, did they change the theory again.  Cry But hey thats common practice in the "assumption" of science.

    Heres a blurb for ya.

    Quote
    On page 61 of the 1992 Edition ?Prentice Hall General Science? textbook it states.

    ?Most scientists believe that 18 to 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason this region exploded. This explosion is called the Big Bang.?

    In this at least there is matter to begin with.

    On page 69 the book states that ?as the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster.


    OOHHHHH, look at what we teach the little ones.  Roll Eyes so sad really. Also Big Bang has been on its way out anyway, just to many problems.  Cheesy

    Why are you quoting something abut a nebula when the topic is the big bang? Nebulae have nothing to do with this. The text you quoted does not mention spin in relation to the big bang.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #66 - June 02, 2009, 08:53 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 08:36 PM
    So do you believe that other species evolved in the way I said on page 1, or not?  Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth.  Just answer the question, please.  If you do, I'll address yours.


    Yes and no. Felines remained felines, though they became more varied. Humans remains humans, though we also varied. We do not come from monkeys.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #67 - June 02, 2009, 08:56 PM
    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 08:53 PM
    Yes and no. Felines remained felines, though they became more varied. Humans remains humans, though we also varied. We do not come from monkeys.


    Leave aside humans, they are irrelevant to this particular question.  Felines remained felines, but within the family of felines there are many different species - the lion, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, etc.  All of which came from a common ancestor through the process I described on page 1 of this thread.  Do you accept that, yes or no?

    (Please just answer, don't make me pull teeth again, I have a splitting headache from the heat).
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #68 - June 02, 2009, 08:57 PM
    What about the bit dok said about the big bang being described as an explosion? Cheetah and NineBerry denied that the Big Bang was an explosion?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #69 - June 02, 2009, 08:57 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 08:34 PM
    It was never thought to be spinning, Dok, any more than it was ever thought to be an explosion.  The theory itself excludes the possibility of the primordial particle spinning because, according to Big Bang theory, there would be no outside forces to give it momentum to spin. 

    Your blurb is meaningless without providing a link I can click on.  Without that, for all I know you made that passage up in your head - or more likely, you copy and pasted it from a creationist web site, who in turn quote mined it like they usually do.


    Thats part of the section on the Big Bang in a science book used to teach people about science, as most Big Bnag proponents believe this  is a repeating cycle of expansion and contraction, so during the contraction phase everything heats up to a plasma state, as with during expansion. Thats what the nebula part is refeering to. Have fun with it, cya.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #70 - June 02, 2009, 08:59 PM
    Quote from: J4m3z on June 02, 2009, 08:57 PM
    What about the bit dok said about the big bang being described as an explosion? Cheetah and NineBerry denied that the Big Bang was an explosion?


    Where's the source?
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #71 - June 02, 2009, 09:03 PM
    Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 08:40 PM
    The cat is a particle in a "cloud" of matter that later on becomes the planets.

    See. There you have a contradiction. Did Solomon invent lol cats? No, he didn't. So he cannot have been te wisest man to ever live. q.e.d


    We have no evidence that Solomon did not invent lol cats. He could have.  bunny
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #72 - June 02, 2009, 09:04 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 08:56 PM
    Leave aside humans, they are irrelevant to this particular question.  Felines remained felines, but within the family of felines there are many different species - the lion, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, etc.  All of which came from a common ancestor through the process I described on page 1 of this thread.  Do you accept that, yes or no?

    (Please just answer, don't make me pull teeth again, I have a splitting headache from the heat).


    Yes.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #73 - June 02, 2009, 09:05 PM
    Quote from: dok on June 02, 2009, 08:57 PM
    Thats part of the section on the Big Bang in a science book used to teach people about science, as most Big Bnag proponents believe this  is a repeating cycle of expansion and contraction, so during the contraction phase everything heats up to a plasma state, as with during expansion. Thats what the nebula part is refeering to. Have fun with it, cya.


    So give us a link to it, Dok.  If you found it online to copy and paste, you must surely be able to provide a link to it that the rest of us can click on? 
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #74 - June 02, 2009, 09:08 PM
    Cats aren't mentioned even once in the Bible. That really is a shortcoming.
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #75 - June 02, 2009, 09:10 PM
    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 09:04 PM
    Yes.


    Thank you.   Smiley  Sorry for being snappy, I really do have a splitting headache. 

    Right, now that you have accepted the process of evolution by natural selection for the feline family, how do you explain the story of sudden creation of all creatures in the Book of Genesis?  You cannot believe that is literally true, and also accept the diversification of feline species through the process I described on page 1 of this thread.  The two explanations of diversity are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #76 - June 02, 2009, 09:17 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 09:10 PM
    Thank you.   Smiley  Sorry for being snappy, I really do have a splitting headache. 

    Right, now that you have accepted the process of evolution by natural selection for the feline family, how do you explain the story of sudden creation of all creatures in the Book of Genesis?  You cannot believe that is literally true, and also accept the diversification of feline species through the process I described on page 1 of this thread.  The two explanations of diversity are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.


    They're still felines, and we're still people. Sorry, I'm kind of distracted right now.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #77 - June 02, 2009, 09:19 PM
    Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 09:08 PM
    Cats aren't mentioned even once in the Bible. That really is a shortcoming.


    Well, they're not Christians....at least I don't think so. Now, dogs may be.  Smiley
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #78 - June 02, 2009, 09:25 PM
    Never mind people, I'm only asking you about felines.  The Bible says, in Genesis Chapter One, that ....

    Quote
    And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


    That was the Fifth day of creation, according to the Bible.  Now - if God created every living creature that moveth on the fifth day, how could feline diversification have taken place gradually through the process I described on page 1 of this thread?
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #79 - June 02, 2009, 09:27 PM
    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 09:19 PM
    Well, they're not Christians....at least I don't think so. Now, dogs may be.  Smiley


    So, dogs are christians?
    So, in order to be a Christian you need to obidiently follow your master? I'd rather ba a cat then.

    SCNR Wink
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #80 - June 02, 2009, 09:58 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 09:25 PM
    Never mind people, I'm only asking you about felines.  The Bible says, in Genesis Chapter One, that ....

    That was the Fifth day of creation, according to the Bible.  Now - if God created every living creature that moveth on the fifth day, how could feline diversification have taken place gradually through the process I described on page 1 of this thread?


    Alot can happen in 6,000 years.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #81 - June 02, 2009, 10:03 PM
    If you can accept that a cat can turn into a tiger in 6000 years (which is by the way much too short a time from an evolutionary perspective), why can you not accept that a mouse can turn into a cat in say ten million years?
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #82 - June 02, 2009, 10:04 PM
    Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 09:27 PM
    So, dogs are christians?
    So, in order to be a Christian you need to obidiently follow your master? I'd rather ba a cat then.

    SCNR Wink


    We all tend to be like cats. Only by grace can we be made doggy. (Did I just say that? Did I say it out loud? Please tell me I did not say that.)  mysmilie_977

    What's SCNR?
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #83 - June 02, 2009, 10:08 PM
    Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 10:03 PM
    If you can accept that a cat can turn into a tiger in 6000 years (which is by the way much too short a time from an evolutionary perspective), why can you not accept that a mouse can turn into a cat in say ten million years?


    It's not too short a time...though I believe the feline tarted out big...then smaller breeds came later. I don't know what could happen in ten million years, but I don't see one species changing into another.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #84 - June 02, 2009, 10:19 PM
    Why not?  Tongue

    Also, speaking of cats, why do they sleep with their paws over their noses?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #85 - June 02, 2009, 10:21 PM
    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 10:04 PM
    What's SCNR?


    "Sorry, could not resist"

    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 10:08 PM
    It's not too short a time...


    How old does a cat have to be to be able to have young? I don't know much about cats, so let's assume two years. That means in 6000 years, you only have 3000 generations. That's not very much if you consider the differences between all the different species of felines.

    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 10:08 PM
    though I believe the feline tarted out big...then smaller breeds came later.


    No, it started with small Mongoose-like creatures.


    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 10:08 PM
    I don't know what could happen in ten million years, but I don't see one species changing into another.


    But you said that tigers and house cats and cheetahs have a common ancestor. Those are different species. So, if you believe that they have a common ancestor, you believe that without seeing a tiger born from a cheetah. So, where is the difference?

    Also compare that to languages:

    You know that French, Spanish and Italian are all variants of Latin. No one engineered these languages. They all evolved from Latin by the people using these languages modifying details in their common usage. You don't see this process. You don't see people speaking a different language than their parents. But when you read am English text written two hundred years ago, you can see, that English was different back then. And when you go even further back (say 1000 years), you won't find an English language.

    ---

    Question: When you accept that tigers and house cats and cheetahs have a common ancestor, do you also include hyena and mongoose?
    bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #86 - June 03, 2009, 07:14 AM
    Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 09:17 PM
    They're still felines, and we're still people. Sorry, I'm kind of distracted right now.



    Translation; 'duh...don't understand.'

    When you're not 'kind of distracted' can you go into more detail please?
    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #87 - June 03, 2009, 11:30 AM
    Shan, you know when you say you don't believe that one species can turn into another. You make it sound like one species miraculously and suddenly transforms into another. It's not Pokemon, you know? Species categorizations are very rough and the differences over time between two species are very gradual; you can't exactly draw a line between when the species turns officially into another one. Species categorization is basically drawing a line around a certain group of animals from a certain time period and giving it a name. It's purely for practical reasons, though they are generally suppose to have very similar characteristics. It's at the discretion of the scientists whether they want to make a new categorization between two species because they believe that the two species are so different that it suffices a need to create another species in between the two. So when you start using the word species, your playing right into the hands of the scientists, using their categorizations. So when you say "I don't believe one species can turn into another", what your saying is "I believe it can change in that way but not in that way" which seems quite arbitrary to me. How in your eyes does a species change (but still remain a part of that species)?
    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #88 - June 03, 2009, 12:49 PM
    Now, to answer Shaneequa's questions.

    Quote
    1)  The primordial particle did not spin.

    Quote
    What did it do? From where did it come?


    It did nothing.  Nobody knows what happened prior to the Big Bang.  There are different hypotheses, but nobody really knows the answer yet, and anybody who pretends to know is lying.

    Quote
    2)  The Big Bang was not an explosion.


    Quote
    What was it?


    It was a reduction in temperature accompanied with an expansion in space, within finite time.

    Quote
    3)  The Law of Angular Momentum only applies in the absence of an external force acting on the object in question.


    Quote
    I'm have trouble with this one.


    Imagine yourself on a merry go round spinning faster and faster.  Imagine you jump off it, what happens?  Unless you crash into something, or someone behind you pulls you backwards you won't be able to help yourself running a few steps in the same direction as the spin of the merry go round.

    Quote
    4)  The formation of solar systems and planets happened much much much later than the Big Bang,


    Quote
    I thought you said there was no big bang.


    I said the Big Bang was not an explosion.

    Quote
    and in the intervening years many external forces came into play.


    Quote
    Like what?


    Like gravitational pull between celestial objects, and like collisions between them.



    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
     Reply #89 - June 03, 2009, 02:01 PM
    The "Big Bang" is what happens after you come home from the pub on Saturday night.
    There will be no white flag above our door
  • Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »