No. The "Tiny particle" didn't exist in space and time. That's what you're missing. There was no space or time before that. It didn't exist. The singularity is what created space and time.

I'd fit spiders, mosquitos, wasps, and chiggers in the category of annoying not miraculous.

I like the idea of a "white hole."

Racist.

KKQuantum Physics

I prefer pink ones. :p

From what I've heard they are all pink on the inside.

Supposedly it's all pink past the event horizon....

the Black hole must have been bleached.

I never lost faith, CP turned it to pussy talk, it was just a matter of time

Between Homoerectus and Homosapien, there's many micro evolutionary steps that have been discovered. That proves the possibility of a link between erectus and sapiens. Doesn't disprove a "clean sheet" design ie creationism, but what we have in front of us is what we have. The missing link is the "ape" that macro evolved into Homoerectus while all other primates stayed primitive.
Darwin didn't have knowledge of DNA and that's where it's getting exciting. Early DNA discoveries made darwinists jump to conclusions to fit their belief, their faith. Pigs, and Apes share a lot of DNA markers, so therefore they are relatives they espoused. Here again, jumping to a conclusion to fit an agenda or belief is another handicap of man. Recent DNA discovery unlocking more about DNA and is revealing that we're no more related by DNA than saying that our bodies are 90% water so we must be related.
I'm fine with either evolution or creation, because it doesn't disprove God, Christ, or the demon that I unfortunately know. Whether it's creation through a mythical poof or through a mythical macro evolution, doesn't matter to me.

The Denver penis pic needed somewhere to go.

The problem with this is nobody seems to understand that nobody is saying we evolved from a monkey to homoerectus to homsapiens. All that it is saying is that we share a common ancestor.

I'll just leave you with this. http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/20/ty4yba5y.jpg

Beautiful picture that isn't accurate? Thanks for sharing.

Humans are not descended from homo erectus just like we aren't descended from neanderthals.

I'm not going to cut and paste a bunch of stuff from talkorigins.org because I'm certain you won't read it.

you can start here if you are really are curious. Its long and arduous to read all the articles, but if you really want to understand the origins of mankind you can't get it from a bumpersticker. Only a lot of reading.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

So are you going with the ape or the guppie? There were many Homos after erectus including Neanderthals that are closer to sapien. Between those Homos is signs of micro evolution. There's nothing found before erectus that could have micro evolved into erectus. The difference between Neanderthals and sapiens is enormous.

If you just want a quick run down of humanoid fossils that link all the "missing links" together go here. Very very partial but includes most of the more notable finds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

I Your proven lack of credibility is what prevents me from clicking any link you provided. The picture just proved that someone believes that man came from ape. I however do not.
This link shows the link from erectus to sapien http://www.becominghuman.org/
Everyone has a link, I wait for facts to come in before jumping to conclusions.

Man didn't 'come from apes'.

They have a common ancestor.

Based on your posts you seem to think evolution is a linear process.

This doesn't appear to make any sense. What problems do you have with whale evolution? Since you initially said macro evolution in general, I am left to presume you think there are missing links all over the place.

:rolleyes:

I guess you missed where I said "Or, it didn't, right?"

I've opened Pandora's box of conclusion jumpers. Everyone jumps to conclusions about my conclusions when I've already said that I wait for facts. I will conclude once facts are in. Evolution to homsapiens is unproven at this time without macro evolution. People need to learn how to read.

Explain. You're clearly well versed in how the big bang theory violates the laws of thermodynamics.

There's no link to a common ancestor since macro evolution hasn't ever been proven. So produce a link or prove macro. Until then I will not assume evolution.
Never said man came from Apes.

Whatever excuse you need to not understand and not know what you're talking about is alright with me. If I'm the excuse so be it.

:LOL::LOL::LOL:LMAO

Because the impotent Canaanite god can't defend himself from reality. Man has to do it for him.

Again with randomality? This is the lynch pen for evolution too (random mutations) and if you do the math behind evolution and random mutations to get to humans and the here and now it's so fantastically remote mathematically that it's laughable to have a serious discussion about. All I'm saying is that this type of theoretical mumbo-jumbo is nothing more than another type of faith. You are using terms like "not necessarily true... plausible... random...." to say science is conclusive and I'm saying science is speculating more than proving anything. I'm not saying "don't work it out scientifically via gathering data" I'm saying don't by hypocritical when people are skeptical on the psuedo-science of some of these theories.

the law of the conservation of energy and the big bang theory are at odds with each other.

You should start each of your posts with I'm not very knowledgeable about science but...

when you've lost an argument you tend to start insulting people, congrats.

Okay, you've made a claim (that is wrong), now explain how this is true.

I didn't ask you to specify which law, I asked HOW it violates the law(s) as you claim it does.

please help me out, how is this wrong?

You are the one making an outrageous claim. The burden of proof is on you. You haven't even told me HOW you think they are at odds.

Why would I help you? I'm using socratic irony here. Your inability to explain exposes your ignorance.

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

No when I'm bored and tired of banging my head on the wall of talking to low information science posters then I tend to insult the fact that they don't know anything.

Ummm... no, it is not.

You can't claim you are smarter than every astronomer on earth and then say the burden of proof is on me. You made the claim, so back it up. I can't tell you how you are wrong when you won't even specify what the hell you're claiming.

Because you haven't a single foggy clue what the hell you're talking about. You made the claim back it up buckwheat.

Socratic irony FTMFW

lol, you have no clue, do you?

the conservation of energy is not hard to understand, but you think insulting people somehow absolves you of trying to reconcile how the big bang theory violates this law. You not only are stupid, you are lazy too.

Okay it looks like you're not here to actually discuss this or back up any of your claims so I think we can say this discussion is at an end. Have a good day

no, I'm asking you to resolve a problem and you claim there is no problem.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qzEbpcUf7rE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Go to 7:39:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/gsA_Omv5hqs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:LOL:

Not gonna watch because I'm not claiming anything about God.

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which has been tested and confirmed.

at what part exactly?

He can't verify his outrageous claim, therefore it has no merit.

All he can do is say "No, U!"

He should not enter that sauce into the county fair, because it is weak.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows these type of violations in short bursts.

I mention this not because I am an expert, but because I took your question, did a simple Google search, and found several answers that are supported by observable fact.

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

Thank You! So the theory of zero energy is the key to this theory! At least that is something...

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

Honestly, we probably can't really expand this any further until we have a grand theory that satisfies both relative theory and quantum theory at the same time. There are 4 natural forces(we know of) in the universe. Gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. Our physics explains how these 4 forces work in the universe.

Relative theory explains very well the motion of what we consider large bodies focusing on the force of gravity. But when you try to apply the theory of relativity(gravity) to very small scenarios, some things happen that relativity cannot explain. To simplify, gravity acts weird at really really small scales, and relativity breaks down. Inversely, quantum theory does very well at explaining things that happen on a very small scale, by looking at the natural forces other than gravity. Electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces in nature. These forces have great effect at very small scales where gravity is essentially insignificant. But these 3 forces are so weak at large scales that the physics again breaks down. Quantum mechanics in turn cannot explain some things that happen on very large scales, mostly because gravity is the dominant force there.

Which is also why quantum mechanics could actually serve as a better model than relativity for explaining the Big Bang because it's describing the universe as a tiny singularity where quantum physics works better. Gravity doesn't have much if any affect in a singularity, which is why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily violate relativity.

That said.... we need a new model that explains all 4 natural forces simultaneously.

When we finally discover the "Theory of everything" that can explain physics correctly at all scales of reference, we'll have another explosion of knowledge and information even bigger than when we proved the relativity and quantum theories. And it will happen eventually. Hopefully in our lifetime. It may very well be that we need to include another force(s) other than the 4 that we know. Perhaps it will require new physics to include what we now know as dark energy/matter/weakly interacting massive particles. That's my guess.

Thanks fish for a great post. It's entirely too much typing for me however I agree and I do think that dark energy or matter is going to play a role with tying the theories of the small and the large together.

We don't even know what Dark matter is made out of? How it acts? It's like what 85% of the universe, correct? Basically its a way we are giving mass to something that has no mass?

When we figure out what dark matter and energy is or how it interacts with the universe.....it would seem we are ready to make a big leap in science and change not just our understanding of the universe but our current life's.

No, actually dark matter clearly has mass. Lots of mass. Detectable mass, which is where the 85% figure comes from. It just doesn't exhibit any electromagnetic attributes. Which is why we can't "See" it and detect it like normal matter. It doesn't emit or absorb light at all. It seems that the only thing detectable that it does have is mass(and maybe weak force).

Define irony:

Someone with no background in science who feels they are qualified to discredit the theses of brilliant individuals who have spent a lifetime contributing to a compendium of knowledge.

Right.

That is my main argument to people who just.cant.get.it. People can accept EVERYTHING that comes from science, computers, satellites, medicine, OUR ENTIRE WORLD, and we KNOW it works. You know, because THAT IS HOW WE WHERE ABLE TO CREATE THESE THINGS! And then people dedicate their entire lives to knowing about how things TRULY work, collaborating all around the world, in the past and going into the future. And when they talk about anything that is at odds with stone aged myths, all the sudden, the 'science isnt in' or any other number of excuses, we have heard them all. Are you kidding me?

The other day, in a single conversation. I had an otherwise intelligent person tell me;

1. 'they found noahs ark, they found it!'
2. Carbon dating has been disproven
3. Humans have only been around for 2000 years
4. The bible was written in the 1800s, after science had taken hold, so science has proven the bible true.

This is why people who understand science, and how it really works, get so exasperated all the time.

Come on.

Actually it's more like 25 % for dark matter, 65% for dark energy and the rest is ordinary matter....or close to those percentages

Yeah, I had a guy once tell me that our history had been artificially compressed and that 'known history' all took place within the past 600 years.

People say weird stuff.

E1. Unknown. Ridges of a Ark shaped boat was spotted in Turkish mountains. Unproven
2. Haven't heard that claim. So far, it seems fairly accurate.
3. That's dumb
4. Never heard that one. Person should be committed.

Closed minded people are frustrating for people who have actually experienced supernatural events whether demonic in my case or angelic in other's cases. I could care less personally if Dave Lane (who can't even read and comprehend a post) ,has a good spiritual experience upon death. I'm not here to convert anyone. I just pointed out that parts of science like parts of the Bible have been corrupted by man.
Religions have been used and corrupted by political forces for sure.
If you don't think that some scientific theories have been bent or influenced by political or atheist agendas, you are naive. Sadly NASA is being totally Co-opted for political purposes right now.
Personally, I am fascinated by the Cosmos and I'm amazed when people aren't. I've seen science change its collective minds so many times and realize that they build theory upon theory and if a previous theory was just slightly off, it changes everything. Science is about repeatability. Where it fails is explaining the non repeatable or the non constant like the speed of light in a vacuum.http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ly-study-finds You know nothing about science if you don't know this.
Zamma Wamma