PDA

View Full Version : Lies straight from the pit of Hell



Qtec
10-07-2012, 12:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution, Embryology, and the Big Bang Theory are 'Lies Straight from the Pit of Hell'

BROUN: God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about<span style='font-size: 14pt'> evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.</span> And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old.</span> I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says. </div></div>


..and here is the punch line.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With such an open mind <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Rep. Broun naturally chairs the House Science Committee on Investigations and Oversight.

The Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight has general and special investigative authority on all matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. </span></div></div>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/rep-paul-broun-evolution-embryology-and-big)

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
10-07-2012, 01:29 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

We have actually come to that time when getting rid of Republicans is truly our only hope to save this planet.

G.

eg8r
10-07-2012, 02:47 PM
Sounds like we have the right man there for the job.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2012, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds like we have the right man there for the job.

eg8r </div></div>

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Anyone who thinks the Earth is 9,000 yrs old must first refute Geology!
Lets hear it!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Scientists hypothesize that North and South America must have been 6,000 miles apart 450 million years ago. Yet, 250 million years later, they lay locked together as part of Pangea, the great supercontinent. Then a great rift developed between them and today’s Atlantic Ocean began to open. [The plates don’t move very quickly. But consider this: Two inches per year - a typical speed - adds up to 30 miles in one million years. It took only 150 million years for a slight fracture in an ancient continent to turn into today’s Atlantic Ocean].

While the Atlantic Ocean opened, the Pacific began to shrink. The Americas slid west while the huge Eurasian plate and Australia drifted east along with India, which broke away from southern Africa to begin it’s long journey north. Some 20 million years later India collided with southern Eurasia, thrusting up their crustal borders, marking the birth of the majestic Himalayan mountain range. <u>And long ago Ireland and northern Scotland were part of North America, attached to Newfoundland, while part of Florida lay in Africa. </u></div></div>


America and the UK are still moving apart!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The continents are still moving at a few centimetres every year. The Atlantic continues to widen while the Pacific is slowly shrinking. The Mediterranean will eventually close up and it is predicted that in another 60 million years, Australia will have moved north as far as the equator. </div></div>

Never mind the facts, eh Ed?

Q

eg8r
10-07-2012, 05:48 PM
These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". Big Bang theory is a perfect example. Nutcases that believe in Big Bang always have that nasty point in the discussion when they have to explain how the big bang actually started. It didn't happen out of thin air. Something must have caused it and that something had to have been created somewhere, sometime by something.

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2012, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". Big Bang theory is a perfect example. Nutcases that believe in Big Bang always have that nasty point in the discussion when they have to explain how the big bang actually started. It didn't happen out of thin air. Something must have caused it and that something had to have been created somewhere, sometime by something.

eg8r </div></div>

Forget the BB. Here on Earth we have proof. Dare to comment on what I actually posted?


Q

Qtec
10-07-2012, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". </div></div>

Can't wait to hear them.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4)
Q

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". Big Bang theory is a perfect example. Nutcases that believe in Big Bang always have that nasty point in the discussion when they have to explain how the big bang actually started. It didn't happen out of thin air. Something must have caused it and that something had to have been created somewhere, sometime by something.

eg8r </div></div>

??? "Nutcases" = the majority of astrophysicists at this point in time. They may be squirrely as eccentric brainiacs tend to be, but they are not nutcases.

God is as good a supposed cause of the Big Bang as any other, and the idea that something cannot come from nothing is inconsistent with quantum physics' paired virtual particles analysis. Would anyone who believes in God as the creator of reality deny He therefore did create the entire known universe, and could do so from nothing?

Or, as in the case of virtual particle pair creation, all you need is to assume an anti-matter universe of the same total mass, angular momentum, charge, spin, etc., and as the sum of that with this universe equals zero, nothing about conservation of energy has been violated.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". Big Bang theory is a perfect example. Nutcases that believe in Big Bang always have that nasty point in the discussion when they have to explain how the big bang actually started. It didn't happen out of thin air. Something must have caused it and that something had to have been created somewhere, sometime by something.

eg8r </div></div>

Forget the BB. Here on Earth we have proof. Dare to comment on what I actually posted?


Q </div></div>

How can you forget the beginning of all matter, all energy, all three spatial dimensions and time?

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:52 AM
Please name some of these non supernatural events of which you speak.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These "facts" are not really facts. There are plenty of examples that go against your "geology". </div></div>

Can't wait to hear them.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGMuIyBK5P4)
Q </div></div>

The quantum physics.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 05:43 AM
Virtual pair particle creation (and destruction)?

The names are the kinds of particles that do this, with their anti-matter pair. So, electron/positron, e.g.

eg8r
10-08-2012, 07:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
??? "Nutcases" = the majority of astrophysicists at this point in time. They may be squirrely as eccentric brainiacs tend to be, but they are not nutcases.
</div></div>It is tougher for you to distinguish when you are stuck in the middle. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">God is as good a supposed cause of the Big Bang as any other, and the idea that something cannot come from nothing is inconsistent with quantum physics' paired virtual particles analysis. Would anyone who believes in God as the creator of reality deny He therefore did create the entire known universe, and could do so from nothing?</div></div>As a creationist, believing God created the universe from nothing is exactly what I have said all along.

As far as quantum physics' paired virtual particles analysis, that is not consistent with something from nothing. It does take a huge stretch of the mind to believe in it but if the particles are popping in and out of existence then you have to accept the fact that the particle was created somehow and did not exactly come from "nothing", it just happens to "appear" and "disappear" based on our ability to "see" it at this point with our current technology.

eg8r

eg8r
10-08-2012, 07:56 AM
So really there isn't anything out of nothing and even if this is correct, who created the anti-matter?

All of these scientists and researchers like to look to things like Big Bang as proof there is no God when they fail to explain how any of that stuff suddenly appeared/happened.

eg8r

LWW
10-08-2012, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Virtual pair particle creation (and destruction)?

The names are the kinds of particles that do this, with their anti-matter pair. So, electron/positron, e.g.

</div></div>

Thanks for no answering.

LWW
10-08-2012, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So really there isn't anything out of nothing and even if this is correct, who created the anti-matter?

All of these scientists and researchers like to look to things like Big Bang as proof there is no God when they fail to explain how any of that stuff suddenly appeared/happened.

eg8r </div></div>

What's truly ironic is the BBT was at first rejected on the basis that it required a Creator.

Qtec
10-08-2012, 09:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a creationist, believing God created the universe from nothing is exactly what I have said all along. </div></div>

I'm fine with that but........there is no evidence at all that suggests the Earth is 9,000 yrs old. Anyone who believes that denies the facts. Its saying that every geologist in the world has got it all wrong. Every astronomer is wrong. etc etc etc etc.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ice cores have been drilled in Antarctica and Greenland to examine the variation of the composition of air trapped in bubbles in the ice, representing global atmospheric conditions as much as 160,000 years BP (1). The first and deepest ice core was drilled at Vostok in central Antarctica, originally by a French-Russian team (Fig 1). Drilling of the core still continues, and it is expected that, <u>when drilling is completed in a few years time, an age of up to 500,000 years will have been reached. </u> </div></div>



Q

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 11:34 AM
It does take a huge stretch of the mind to believe in it

Yep. One of the early founders of QD theory (maybe Dirac or Planck) said something to the effect if you don't find QD quite unbelievable you don't really understand what it says.

but if the particles are popping in and out of existence then you have to accept the fact that the particle was created somehow and did not exactly come from "nothing", it just happens to "appear" and "disappear" based on our ability to "see" it at this point with our current technology.

What any of it means is a good question, whether 'real' or simply helpful heuristics for description and prediction. As to prediction, chromo-quantum dynamics has ridiculous predictive power, and I mean out to 10 decimal places accurate (or was it 32 decimal places? A lot.). Seriously.

Do the virtual particle pairs come out of nothing? Not exactly. The theory is they, in a way, make concrete what is otherwise the energy in the vacuum state, which is not a zero energy state, but highly energetic. So energy to matter, just as matter can be turned into energy.

And as to our seeing them? Actually, no, we cannot see or measure them. They are evanescant, existing for such brief periods of time that it's hard to catch their traces in any technological way. That is, they're a theoretical construct, just as neutrinos were originally. (The neutrino was hypothesized to exist because of the slight mass difference when a neutron breaks down into an electron and proton pair.)

The only way is really if they do not re-vanish, because they are separated, and cannot vanish back into energy. This is the theoretical backdrop for Hawking radiation, wherein virtual particle pairs at or near the event horizon of a black hole separate, one into the black hole and the other safely outside the Schwarzschild limit.

eg8r
10-08-2012, 11:56 AM
All beyond me but not beyond my God. He created it all.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 01:16 PM
Mine, too! LOL!

Cue up the old hymn, 'How Great Thou Art'! A long time favorite of mine.

Physics takes us neatly and cleanly with equations down to where there are what they call singularities, and then... all bets are off, and it cannot go further. Why? Because you're dividing by zero and get infinities. The math breaks down at that point.

It's interesting that the field equations automatically yield infinities until and unless the frame of reference is renormalized to where they're cancelled out.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a creationist, believing God created the universe from nothing is exactly what I have said all along. </div></div>

I'm fine with that but........there is no evidence at all that suggests the Earth is 9,000 yrs old. Anyone who believes that denies the facts. Its saying that every geologist in the world has got it all wrong. Every astronomer is wrong. etc etc etc etc.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ice cores have been drilled in Antarctica and Greenland to examine the variation of the composition of air trapped in bubbles in the ice, representing global atmospheric conditions as much as 160,000 years BP (1). The first and deepest ice core was drilled at Vostok in central Antarctica, originally by a French-Russian team (Fig 1). Drilling of the core still continues, and it is expected that, <u>when drilling is completed in a few years time, an age of up to 500,000 years will have been reached. </u> </div></div>


Q </div></div>
This is because you are a spoon fed tool.

The moonbat crazy left takes a group which comprises maybe .01% of people o faith and tells you to believe they are typical of the majority ... and you obediently believe the lie.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It does take a huge stretch of the mind to believe in it

Yep. One of the early founders of QD theory (maybe Dirac or Planck) said something to the effect if you don't find QD quite unbelievable you don't really understand what it says.

but if the particles are popping in and out of existence then you have to accept the fact that the particle was created somehow and did not exactly come from "nothing", it just happens to "appear" and "disappear" based on our ability to "see" it at this point with our current technology.

What any of it means is a good question, whether 'real' or simply helpful heuristics for description and prediction. As to prediction, chromo-quantum dynamics has ridiculous predictive power, and I mean out to 10 decimal places accurate (or was it 32 decimal places? A lot.). Seriously.

Do the virtual particle pairs come out of nothing? Not exactly. The theory is they, in a way, make concrete what is otherwise the energy in the vacuum state, which is not a zero energy state, but highly energetic. So energy to matter, just as matter can be turned into energy.

And as to our seeing them? Actually, no, we cannot see or measure them. They are evanescant, existing for such brief periods of time that it's hard to catch their traces in any technological way. That is, they're a theoretical construct, just as neutrinos were originally. (The neutrino was hypothesized to exist because of the slight mass difference when a neutron breaks down into an electron and proton pair.)

The only way is really if they do not re-vanish, because they are separated, and cannot vanish back into energy. This is the theoretical backdrop for Hawking radiation, wherein virtual particle pairs at or near the event horizon of a black hole separate, one into the black hole and the other safely outside the Schwarzschild limit.

</div></div>

Actually it's well understood, and is evidence that creation not only happened... but is not yet complete.

Points in te universe re getting farther apart, but not because the points ar moving ... but beause the very space between the points is expanding.

Zero point energy is merely the ground state of the various fields of the universe.

It is probably the answer to Einstein's myterious comological constant.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mine, too! LOL!

Cue up the old hymn, 'How Great Thou Art'! A long time favorite of mine.

Physics takes us neatly and cleanly with equations down to where there are what they call singularities, and then... all bets are off, and it cannot go further. Why? Because you're dividing by zero and get infinities. The math breaks down at that point.

It's interesting that the field equations automatically yield infinities until and unless the frame of reference is renormalized to where they're cancelled out. </div></div>

Well said.

On the other side of the singulity lies the Creator.

As both Hawking and Green hve writtn about at great length ... what is beyond the singularity is not only unknown, but unknowable by physics.

The best we can do is hope to peer back tiny fractions of a millisecod closer to the momnt of creation without ever being able to witness it.

LWW
10-08-2012, 03:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All beyond me but not beyond my God. He created it all.

eg8r </div></div>

Here's one of my favorite quotes on the topic:

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

-Albert Einstein-