thats right!

Many undisputed observations contradict current theories on how the solar system evolved.

One theory says planets formed when a star, passing near our Sun, tore matter from the Sun. More popular theories hold that the solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, or larger particles. If the planets and their 156 known moons evolved from the same material, they should have many similarities. After several decades of planetary exploration, this expectation is now recognized as false.

According to these evolutionary theories:

Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.

Backward Orbits. All 156 moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but more than 30 have backward orbits. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Tipped Orbits. The orbit of each of these 156 moons should lie in the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the Earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits.

Angular Momentum. The Sun should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the Sun.

Contrary to popular opinion, planets should not form from just the mutual gravitational attraction of particles orbiting the Sun.a Orbiting particles are much more likely to be scattered or expelled by their gravitational attraction than they are to be permanently pulled together. Experiments have shown that colliding particles almost always fragment rather than stick together.b (Similar difficulties exist in trying to form a moon from particles orbiting a planet.)

Despite these problems, let us assume that pebble-size to moon-size particles somehow evolved. “Growing a planet” by many small collisions will produce an almost nonspinning planet, because spins imparted by impacts will be largely self-canceling.

The growth of a large, gaseous planet (such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune) far from the central star is especially difficult for evolutionists to explain for several reasons.

a. Gases dissipate rapidly in the vacuum of outer space, especially the lightest two gases—hydrogen and helium, which comprise most of the mass of the giant planets.

b. Because gas molecules orbiting a star do not gravitationally pull in (or merge with) other gas molecules in the orbiting ring, a rocky planet, about ten times larger than Earth, must first form to attract all the gas gravitationally. This must happen very quickly, before the gas dissipates.e (Jupiter’s hydrogen and helium is 300 times more massive than the entire Earth.)

c. Stars like our Sun—even those which evolutionists say are young—do not have enough orbiting hydrogen or helium to form one Jupiter.

Computer simulations show that Uranus and Neptune could not evolve anywhere near their present locations. The planets that are found outside our solar system also contradict the theories for how planets supposedly evolve.

Based on demonstrable science, gaseous planets and the rest of the solar system did not evolve.

Planetary rings have long been associated with claims that planets evolved. Supposedly, after planets formed from a swirling dust cloud, rings remained, as seen around the giant planets: Saturn, Uranus, Jupiter, and Neptune. Therefore, some believe that because we see rings, planets must have evolved.

Actually, rings have nothing to do with a planet’s origin. Rings form when material is expelled from a moon by a volcano, a geyser, or the impact of a comet or meteorite. Debris that escapes a moon because of its weak gravity and a giant planet’s gigantic gravity then orbits that planet as a ring. If these rings were not periodically replenished, they would be dispersed in less than 10,000 years. Because a planet’s gravity pulls escaped particles away from its moons, particles orbiting a planet could never form moons—as evolutionists assert.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...Sciences8.html

:D

Sorry, I have to put on my 'ignorant' head and laugh at this last point. The Bible is a completely sound source for History?!

Granted, there's the odd Historical fact - Rameses II, for example, DID exist. As did many of these "Prophet's".

But a sound source for History?! So, THE correct history, the 100% true History, is a History editted by the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, in the 4th Century? A History that was put together using the more ambiguous stories of some men, to make one person more divine? A History put together to make the Church seem legitimate? Sure, I admire the man's thinking - the Chruch was in decline, fewer people were believing, yet he, with some clever stories, managed to make it into the biggest thing in the world, based on his ideals. All to give people faith. It is actually pretty smart.

But saying that it is, how did you put it?, "Its 100% accurate and according to the constitution, is a completely sound source for history", is stretching the truth maybe just a little.

And no, it doesn't predict the future. You cannot predict the future. What look like predictions, are actually ambiguous phrases that clever little men in dark little rooms have added mystical 'hidden meanings' to, AFTER the event, to make it seem to have been predicted.

-----

Maybe I've been reading too many conspiracy theories, or "Da Vinci Code" style books. Then again, I've never liked religion, so maybe I'm just jumping at chances?

But my main point is: The Bible cannot be called "a completely sound source for history".

Um...YES. The Da Vinci code is FICTION for a reason.:D

check out this film...and try doing some research yourself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5068752&q=code

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ine+bible&meta=

Is where I got a lot of the information for my post from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail

Is what Dan Brown based a lot of his novel on. And was subsequently sued because of.

I agree with Lenny.

Don't even MENTION Dan Brown. Ughhh that stuck up peice of shit with fuckholes for eyes and penis fingers is the true embodiment of why I hate this country for it's fucked up system of free speech. In the beggining of the book, the disclaimer, or claimer on his part says that all artwork described in the book is fucking realistic to every detail. wHAT THE FUCK! Mary Magdeline was NOT in the picture of the last supper. And what the FUCK does the title mean. 'The Da Vinci Code'.... 'The of Vinci code'???? Da Vinci wasn't a last name, 'Da' means 'of'. And NO WAY IN HELL is there a proffesion called Symbology. Shit, I'd kill that puddle of moose cum in a second, even if it meant my eternal damnation. He's just some fatass who decided to wright a book, Of fiction, Claimed to be Non-fiction. He changed his veiws about it, by the way.

A lot of the Da Vinci Code is based on fact if that was not already said.

I'm not saying it's non fiction, but a lot of the things are real.

"Da Vinci" is what probably all historians and art historians call 'Leonado Da Vinci'. Yes, he was called Leonardo Of Vinci, but it is generally accepted that he is known as 'Da Vinci'. His full name is too long, just calling him Leornardo might work, and just calling him Vinci could get confusing.

Symbology in the way of Langdon's academic profession IS purely fictional, yet there will be people around the world who study Symbols and their meanings. So what would you call them, if not "Symbologists".

I'm not going to argue with The Last Supper. There's so many sites now around either agreeing or disagreeing with it, and the things one can do now with Photoshop, well.

Don't hate the man for writing a book. Before "The Da Vinci Code" he was practically unheard of. I hadn't heard of him, that's for sure. Then I heard about the book on the radio: "Yada yada Catholic Secret yada yada Mary Magdalene" but that didn't catch my attention. What did was "a book so badly written, that you'll love it".

If he hadn't published "The Da Vinci Code", would you still hate him? Well maybe, because there's "Angles and Demons". What about if he hadn't published either, and only had the two books on the market - "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress". He writes a particular style - the one-man-detective-mysterysolver--being-hunted-by-some-crackpot-world-group, and does it in such a way that there's been so many copies. "Rule of Four", "The Last Templar", whatever, they're all of that style. There are parallels with Franz Ferdinand and suddenyl everyone jumping on their bandwagon -- one person does something right, everyone wants a piece of the action.

Just take his "Claims" with a pinch of salt, and remember that it is a Fiction novel, appearing on the "Fiction" shelf in bookshops. Like him for his writing, not for glaring mistakes, or mad conspiracies.

Oooh, there's something -- it isn't actually HIS work. Well, the book is, but the idea's aren't. He added flesh to the skeletons of Conspiracies that have been circulating the world for over 30 years!

For ALL the info you whant about evolution and the big bang theory being proven wrong, Buy this guys videos or read his stuff.It (as far as I have seen) is FLAWLESS.
Posted 06-10-2006, 11:57 AM in reply to Willkillforfood's post starting "I was kind of wondering that myself."

http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/

Tiny bacteria? simple even?

Take a look at this picture of the eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...ign2/fig-1.jpg

An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Behe 1996a, 39) Why would such systems present difficulties for Darwinism? Because they could not possibly have been produced by the process of evolution:

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)

The phrase "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is not accidental. The very same words were used by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true. As Darwin wrote, if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). To anti-evolutionists, the bacterial flagellum is now regarded as exactly such a case – an "irreducibly complex system" which "cannot be produced directly by numerous successive, slight modifications." A system that could not have evolved!

It is the simpleist life yet it is very complex. A motor that if one part did not work, the whole operation falls apart!

Shur and I'm Aberham Lincon.

Quoting the bible and double posting...BAN
j/k but still stop quoting the bible it gets annoying.

I think he has EVERY right to quote whatever he whants.At least the BIBLE has great morals and awsome guidelines.unlike the others who post quotes and other junky theory on evolution being real with the big bang theory.Your reply had nothing to do with this thread topic and was completely uncalled for.If you get offended at his post wich was showing his belief on the topic using the BIBLE,keep it to yourself or goto the flame threads.Either way, he has COMPLETE right as far as rules are conserned to post his thread.Not to mention nobody has proven his explanations wrong here yet.I do indeed agree with creation.NOW IF I MAY.I think EVERYONE in here ought to watch these videos at this link.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
They are free to watch!

EDIT: Nevermind...wrong thread...

#1 - dan brown is a liarand a thief(he stole the story from other ppl, or at least i heard that he stole the story), his book "the da vinci code" is fiction(he doesn't even state where his "facts" come from[bibliography or something])

#2 - like i said before, God could have used evolution to create the universe

#3 - speaking of stars, did you guys know that jupiter is a failed star(a celestial object that never quite able to turn into a star), or otherwise known as a brown star?(just a bit of random trivia)

#3 is an interesting fact. I'll keep that in mind. Very interesting.

#2 sounds agreeable, so no duel to the death. :p

#1, however, is not entirely true.

"The Da Vinci Code" PLOT, as far as we know, is all Dan Brown's work.
"The Da Vinvi Code" IDEAS, ie Jesus being a father, were not his:

Many books, including "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail", FACT books, have put forth the argument that Jesus fathered a child. Dan Brown was sued by the others of aforementioned book, but the courts ruled that ideas cannot be copyrighted (in this case, the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdelene), and so Brown did not 'steal' any content. Instead he used it as research for his book.

Other than that, I'll agree, "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction. :p

What pissed me off the most was that the DA Vinci Code was on the Nonfiction shelf in my local bookstore. I wouldn't mind it at all and would actually enjoy the book thoroughly if everyone in town who reads it saysIt's pretty annoying being catholic myself, not only hearing it from them, but being glared at whenever I'm on the street. It's no longer
it's now:
Don't get me wrong, there's always been somewhat of a looked down upon feeling towards catholics in this town, but it just increased it.

One more thing.
Masses are the opiate of the individual.

Now that is stupid. I'd honestly go up to the counter and tell the workers off for doing that.

-----

Don't let what other people are saying put you off something.

And I don't see why the book would make people hate Catholics more. It's not as if it specifically talks about Catholics all the time.

So yeah, read it. It IS a good book, even if it's only good because it's badly written. If you like it, then read Angels and Demons.

finaly a thread i can be kinda prode of

What does 'prode' mean?

the universe started when god created the hevens and the earth

God started the universe with the big bang

I don't know if I had posted in here or not..

But anyways. I do believe in the big-bang theory, it makes the most sense for how the universe unfolded over time. But, go a few steps before that, where did matter and gravity originate from? Until it can be proven that we just sporatically and spontaneously came from NOTHING then I am going to believe that we were created by something, somewhere. Probably not on our plane of existance, but superior to our existance.

But to answer the question, more than likely the universe begun with the "big bang theory" playing out. The next question is How was the matter created that caused the big bang?

How was this "Supreme Being" created that caused the creation of the gravity and matter that caused the creation of the big bang?

I love the retardism of previous posts though. For some reason people are talking as if words already existed and we just fit things into them when the truth is words were created to fit to those things. For instance, evolution is a WORD created to label the changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment. We didn't already have the word evolution and decide that it would mean something. No we had something and decided that we would put a word on it.

Also comparing evolution to creationism is a little like comparing peanut butter to bread. Sure the peanut butter can go on the bread but they are certainly not the same thing. In other terms. How does "changes and adaptations of creatures to their changing enviroment." compare to "how the universe started". Evolution is more like a explanation of why our eyes go bad from staring at the sun too long. Creation is more like an explanation, albiet a very fickle and unproven one, of how the very cosmos came to be. I fail to see how they collide exactly. Thus Jesus's previous arguements are moot at best on how evolution is untrue. However his arguements that the big bang theory are untrue are moot because of another cause all together. That cause being it has been labelled. The minute you label a circumstance it means that that circumstance is true but it may or may not explain what it does.

Simply put Scientists discovered through astrology and experiments that you could create a big bang in which you are left with living and non living matter. They said "This could be how the universe started."

Now one could argue that it's not how the universe started however you cannot say it's untrue or that it isn't a possibility when you don't provide much evidence other than people saying "I believe it's true/untrue because I prayed about it." You cannot go off of 1 of 6 billion peoples beliefs and say it's absolute truth. In fact even if all 6 billion believed it that does not mean it's the absolute truth. It simply means that 6 billion people "believe" it's the truth but who says they are right? What because there are so many on them that vehemently swear to it it's the right answer? Does this mean that if I got enough people together to swear that 2+2 was 22 it would make it absolute truth? Even though the number system does not work like that? No. Please present more evidence of your claims. Of course the difference between religion and science IS evidence.

Thus while I am a religous man I still do believe that evolution is true.

yes the big bang theory sounds nuts...and just because a scientist says something does not make it true only a therory...such as global warming...completely unproven with no hard evidence

I really hate people.

I nearly shit myself reading that. You should send that to the democratic party and watch them go nuts :haha:

I agree with what you said jamer. Even if it isn't true, well, it's a good enough explanation. Throughout history many people have believed in a creator. From my understanding, it wasn't until most recently that scientists have been trying to explain things.

Scientists have disputed the Church's theories on the universe since long ago. Many of them have been put to death for their cause.

That's why some are compelled to say the Catholic Church is corrupt

If turning a blind eye to decades of child molestation is corrupt, then yes. Only when their very survival is in question do they do anything.

For me how it all began has been the MOST difficult question I have ever tried to find an answer to. But in all my searches, the one answer that seemed to be the most soothing was that we dont or cant have an answer to it because we are too small to see it. I mean that in the literal sense as well. As in our ENTIRE universe maybe nothing more than an atom in a greater universe. Or as men in black put it, a marbel in some aliens bag.

The entire arguement is something I think we as humans cannot answer until we are able to literally bend space and time. Its something we ask ourselves daily regarding the galaxy, but something we cant even answer on our own planet (the chicken or the egg.)

So like I said, for me, the easiest answer to accept is that we are nothing more than a microscopic part of something bigger and that is why we cannot fathom it. We are too small to see the beginning or the end. Oh....theory btw.

Funny you should say that because that's how I feel. Like even if we explored the entire galaxy we would still have millions of others to explore and who knows what is beyond that.

Catholic priests are not the only ones who have committed the horrible act of child molestation. They are fallible human beings, just like everyone else. They do, however, seem to be the most recognized for it. The reason, quite simply, is the fact that people have been trying to destroy the church through any means they can.

Child molestation over such a massive scale and over such an extended period of time would be big news ANYWHERE. One 16-year-old boy fucks a young teacher and it's news, let alone hundreds being molested in clusters.

The reason why it's so ironic is because they're supposed to not just be normal, fallible human beings. They're supposed to be speaking on behalf of God. Which reinforces the absurdity of any one group or book being the word of 'God.' They're just normal human beings and do not have things figured out more than any of us.

And the church has been trying to silence people seeking other answers to things for the longest time. Can you blame people for not liking them?

Scientists were often RUINED or KILLED for even saying that there could be a different explaination for things. For instance, saying that Earth isn't the center of the Universe. The church wouldn't even consider that they might be wrong about something, because that indicates that the Bible is wrong about something. Instead, they put people to death for simply suggesting that there was evidence that disputed what was accepted as the truth.

The church basically doesn't care about silencing the truth, it just cares about maintaining its control over the people. If the Bible says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and science proves that that is wrong, it makes it a bit harder to believe that the Bible is the word of God. If the Bible were the word of God, you would think that it would be right about something like whether or not the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Yes, i sort of agree with you there. It is something that is more shameful for a priest to do. The other priests who hear about this happening are very hurt. It's no less than betrayel.

Yes. I admit that the church did go through a period of corruption. However, this only proves that the ordained priests are not God and therefore have the ability to be led astray. There has been many cases where very sinful men have joined the priesthood for the sole purpose of destroying the church from the inside. This is when catholics have to hold onto what the church is supposed to be.

They don't try to control people, not any more at least. I've never felt controlled. In the case of silencing truth, however, you are partially right. There are some churches where the clergy is so corrput that it will not even allow their own priests to speak what they believe to be truth. What men make the church out to be, and what Catholicism is essentially about are two completely different things.

Whilst not completely related to this, the subject about the Church silencing and controlling is similar to something I tried to start a while ago - that Technology and Science were held back for over a thousand years by the Catholic Church. I'd be interested to hear your views