read about the big bang and you will dicover the electromagnetic radiation, light energy was the first formation, apply e=mc2 equals matter etc. i wont go over it again.
The Big Bang Theory states no such thing. Furthermore, the "light energy" you speak of is one of the products that was released from the initial expansion. Matter was also present in the form of protons and neutrons. Get your facts straight.
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotrophy Probe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.htmlthose fossils are in your pick name the fossils in your pick because i have no idea were you gleaned them from, i assumed they were since they appear however, i could be wrong but no transitional fossils have been found, out of the millions of fossils. i can post a link with a expert in palentology and the geological strata saying this and claiming fossils are mistakes, which they are. it is a quote from a nuclear physicist and oceanography phd from mIt and with high level chemistry and biology as pertaining to dna sequencing( also, in scientific america, if you like i will elaborate).
Here is the list of fossils in the pic.
Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Evolution predicts we share a common ancestor. Therefore, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. The aforementioned fossils demonstrate characterisitcs unique to both organisms. By definition, they are transitional fossils. You can go ahead and post the article where an expert claims some fossils were faked. This does not disprove the plethora of genuine fossils discovered. It merely proves that some of the fossils he studied were fake.
you avoid the fact and explain the evolution of bacteria all you want, from the fossil record 34 phyla are seen to happen abruptly, this is a fact and evolutionist reckon its good old punctuated equilibrium( you familiar with the theory ). i again claim and state as fact that speciation has never been seen ever anywere on this planet.
Evolution theory predicts that there have been millions of transitional organisms. It does not predict that all these organisms were preserved as fossils. Just b/c there are gaps in the fossil record does not mean we can jump to the conclusion that no more fossils are left to be discovered.
as for the mars comment, that is a fallacy. tidal flows, difference in tilt, orbit, rotation would make life impossible. thinking of imaginary scenarios were life may be possible is fine, but stick to the facts. earth is in a huge delicate balance. also, you have no idea what cooler temps as you put it would create a optimal envoiroment the facts however refute you in that they state earth and the sun in relation to the planets is in a delicte balance which is highly improbable.
No, facts do not refute me. I was raising a point in my last post - how can you say earth is fine tuned for life when you have nothing to compare to? For all we know, aliens in a distant galaxy with a sun different than our own could be saying the same thing about their planet. The reason you have difficulty comprehending this is b/c your logic is flawed. The sun and earth did not form so that life may evolve, rather life evolved b/c of where the sun and the earth formed.
ok, your theory violates laws yet you cling to it, that is the big bang. it is a theory of creation in that the materialistic model states it as the first occurence in the universe, thus it is relevant to singularity. ok so the big bang is swirling around until it explodes violently to create this universe. so according to the law of angular momentum everything should be spinning the same way ala the big bang. why then do some planets rotate the opposite way? guess it just violates it but it is acceptable. lets not forget darwin was a atheist.
The Big Bang Theory does not violate any laws. If it did, then I assure you it would no longer be a scientific theory. The theory never states the big bang swirled around until it exploded to create the univese. In fact, your arguments are beginning to sound exactly like "Dr." Hovind's. He was refuted years ago by leading scientists. Who cares if Darwin was an atheist? I don't see how that changes anything.
next point second law of thermodynamics you tend to not answer this point, everything tends towards chaos or decay. this is a fact yes. why then do organisms become more complex via bacteria to human. they contain no chlrophyll to harness the energy required to break this cycle and as you stated the first bacteria contained no pigment.
I've already explained this to you. Do you not read my posts? Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics b/c life is an open system. We recieve our energy from the sun. Plants convert photoenergy into chemical energy which is used by animals. The earliest forms of life probably did not require energy in the sense you think. They most likely incorporated molecules to replicate themselves much like viruses.
everything you say is conjecture and speculation about 600 million years, refs please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionok so the earth was heated and cooled obviously then explain polonium halos in granite which refutes this adequetely. also the term missing link comes up alot in evolution, perhaps because there is none.
Sorry, but you can do your own research. You ask me a barrage of questions and then expect me to answer every single one of them. I will not waist my time lecturing you whenever you have a question, especially when keep repeating the same ignorant comments over and over. God gave you 2 hands and a brain - now use them!
also, moral code what is the standard, if it was learned then wouldn't generations exhibit different morals as expressed by the leaders ect. no it is innate, people may choose not to do right or wrong ( ie murderers, but knew the difference, this is a psychology concept) thus it is innate. that also seems rather strange.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Look up moral philosophy.
also the universe is not superheavy as evidenced by data thus not self sustaining if that was an argument.
I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain.
you describe the exact same sequence of events i did with more detail and proper names yet the ridiculousness shines through. ok back to singularity. i say god created matter you say what created matter dirt, nothingness. both are religions inherently my friend i just think my explains more. and if you say you dont know what created matter then why do you reject god, seems logical more so then nothingness surely nothingness cannot create somethingness wouldn't you agree
The Big Bang Theory is not a religion. Science uses evidence to support theories. Belief in a god(s) requires a leap of faith b/c there is no evidence.
and my point about punctuated equilibrium is that evolutionist come up with different models that we cant observe to justify their beliefs again it is a religion based on faith. amen.
Evolutionists use the fossil record, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, embryology, comparative homology, and molecular biology to study evolution. There is a wealth of evidence that supports macroevolution. You assume that it never happened b/c nobody has ever witnessed it. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The law uses a similar process called forensics to piece together events that occured without a witness. Using your logic, thousands of criminals should be let free b/c nobody ever saw them commit a crime. Maybe all the detectives were wrong.
