swgohome.com

Well since i'm feeling down today i decided to finally post the why i don't believe in the big bang theory nor the evolution theory

Well to start off, the earth's dimencions are approximatly 40.000KM wich in space is nothing, if the earth would be around 4000KM bigger the gravity would increase so much that the earth would slowly move closer to the sun every year since it would go out of it's course...life would be imposible.
However if the earth would be around 3000KM smaller it's gravity would be too low and we would move away from the sun....and freeze to death.
Now if the earth would be around 5000KM closer of further to/from the sun life would be imposible.

The earth spins it's own dimencion once every 24 hours...if this would be longer or shorter one side would burn and the other side would freeze...life would be quite imposible.
There are of course much more things i could name here, like the magnetic field, and the atmosphere as well as the ozone layer...
To come to this i cannot believe that some explosion in space was able to put the earth in the position it currently is, with the exact right size traveling at the right speed with the right gravity, as well as the only discovered planet with an ozone layer on wich life can exist.

Even tough this could all be a cooincidence i do not believe so much luck is posible....
However the second part is more logic then the first..

About the Evolution theory....
cience as well as many religions believe the earth started off as a crust, a more or less rock with explosions vulcanos etc.
Now cience believes that after some time of changes a cel came to be of wich spawned life, okay so far.
Now can anyone tell me how the heck it is posible to get a biological life from a chemical reaction? as the earth was a crust with explosions lava etc...i really would like to know how chemical reactions can create a biological response...since modern cience hasn't prooven this.
Imagen this did somehow happen..

Imagen a cel came to be out of nothing, simple evolution.
Now there are 2 types of base cels, the ones with a core, and the ones without it.
The cels without a core do not come to be inteligent life, wich now creates bacteria and such, however cells with a core create inteligent life AKA humans come off cels with a core.
Now please tell me if cience believes life started with a cel without a core, then how is it posible that a coreless cel is able to somehow evolve into a cel with a core, and that this cel with a core is able to sustain a inteligent life form as complex as a human.
Modern cience HASN'T Prooven in any way this is posible.

Besides this, humans are supposed to be [well manicured man] sapiens like cience discribes them, so we are mamells and just inteligent animals...well i can get this logic besides the point where we don't act like animals.
Meaning we pollute the earth we live in, a dog doesn't take a dump in his house by figuere of speach, an animals do not reason, do not think, they work on an instinct, we are the only life form on this blue marble that doesn't.
We use animals for testing, the point being that humans do not act like animals, our brain is nothing related to them, also cientists discovered that both our bodies and our brains are made to last forever, while the bodies and brains of animals aren't...furthermore cientists cannot explain why after the third cycle we start dying...

The cycles are points in our life where our blood as well as our cells renew, this happens 3 times after we are born and not more.
This happens every 7 years so, at the age of 7, 14 and 21, remarkable that when we reach 28 the cells would need to be renewed and it doesn't happen for some reason...odder still that from that time people start getting weaker, start having back problems etc...

I could name much more things but i think this post will be quite big enough already...soon people will call me "dread "

MT

Two questions.
1 - Do they teach this stuff in school for you?
2 - How did these happen if not big bang and evolution?

This reminds me about my homeworks . About that there is no animal that can think i am not so sure because there is a dog on here that is pretty clever.

Matt-Chicago wrote:Two questions.
1 - Do they teach this stuff in school for you?
2 - How did these happen if not big bang and evolution?

1- No in school anywhere we learn that the big bang theory and the evolution theory are correct, i don't think there are any schools left(maybe 3rd world schools) that teach something else.
2- Well currently there are 2 theories, one is evolution while the other is that someone created us, of course do not mix religion with creation.

@Tom

Your dog may be smart wich can be very true, but still your dog has an instinct, not a free mind, if you hit your dog it's insinct will react, while hitting a human will create not an instinct based response but a free thinking response, besides it has been prooven that animals have an instinct.

I was talking about Haas...

(SWGO)Minas_Thirith wrote:Now can anyone tell me how the heck it is posible to get a biological life from a chemical reaction? as the earth was a crust with explosions lava etc...i really would like to know how chemical reactions can create a biological response...since modern cience hasn't prooven this.

Well, Ribonucleic acid (RNA) enzymes that can replicate themselves are our best bet, because the process of heritability are a critical characteristic of living systems.

This all probably happened in some swamp somewhere. Imagine dagobah just with no trees or random aliens crapping and [poo] ing everywhere and stealing your food.

Sir Bang wrote:This all probably happened in some swamp somewhere. Imagine dagobah just with no trees or random aliens crapping and [poo] ing everywhere and stealing your food.

Since the earth at that time didn't have vegatacion where did you get the swamp?
I don't see an explination for chemical reactions leading to vegitacion either, and where did the water came from?

lol MT, has dread being giving you some lessons on how to write large posts?

What exactly are you asking here? Do you want to know why we came into being, how was this possible or are you saying you believe in the evolution theory, the big bang (if you want to use that phrase) or both. Just getting a bit confused that's all?

MT, if they did teach you the stuff you claim they do in your school, you wouldn't need to be asking some of the questions you are. I'm not very physics-literate, so I won't open my mouth on that aspect of your post (if only some Creationists took this same approach in real life). However, in regards to your section on evolution, it's very clear that you simply haven't learned about it in detail. That doesn't mean the theory of natural selection is wrong. It means you don't understand it.

cience as well as many religions believe the earth started off as a crust, a more or less rock with explosions vulcanos etc.
Now cience believes that after some time of changes a cel came to be of wich spawned life, okay so far.
Now can anyone tell me how the heck it is posible to get a biological life from a chemical reaction? as the earth was a crust with explosions lava etc...i really would like to know how chemical reactions can create a biological response...since modern cience hasn't prooven this.
Imagen this did somehow happen..

Imagen a cel came to be out of nothing, simple evolution.
Now there are 2 types of base cels, the ones with a core, and the ones without it.
The cels without a core do not come to be inteligent life, wich now creates bacteria and such, however cells with a core create inteligent life AKA humans come off cels with a core.
Now please tell me if cience believes life started with a cel without a core, then how is it posible that a coreless cel is able to somehow evolve into a cel with a core, and that this cel with a core is able to sustain a inteligent life form as complex as a human.
Modern cience HASN'T Prooven in any way this is posible.

First, when the Earth formed, [poo] didn't immediately just go "hey, you know what? Let's react and make some self-replicating molecules!". Conditions would have been far too turbulent and energetic for some of the Earth's early history for complex organic molecules to form and exist stably. In no way does this mean that conditions were perpetually incompatible with life.

As to your second paragraph, how prokaryotes developed into eukaryotes is a very interesting area of study today. I don't remember most of the details of many of the theories. An example of one I can remember is that an ancient prokaryote very similar to the mitochondria in our own cells had a symbiotic relationship with a large prokaryote: the mitochonria-esque prokaryote benefited from the nutrient-rich and sheltered environment of the larger cell, and the larger cell benefited from the increased production of ATP from the smaller cell. Eventually, the smaller cell became part of the larger cell, so that the larger cell no longer had to rely on coming upon one by chance. Now that this larger cell had the advantage of a larger source of energy (more ATP from mitochondria), it was at a selective advantage and proliferated. Then some other mad [poo] like mutations to give cells nuclear membranes happened and tada- you have a eukaryote.

I know I haven't been as thorough as I could have in what I've said, but I really don't see the need to go into more detail. Scientists in fact do have many wonderful different theories on these subjects, and since you obviously haven't learned about them at school, I'd urge you to buy some books about them and learn yourself- they really are very interesting.

Btw MT, "biological life"? I've never heard of "non-biological life".

Ooh and Bang, one of the most convincing theories I've heard was that the first self-replicating molecules have their origins in geothermal vents on the ocean floor. There are some really well thought-out steps involved in it- you should ask your teachers about it, it's pretty cool.