[Wesley7777]

That's an odd place to learn it, it's not part of chemestry but of physics.

it was honor physics and the end of the year so we moved into some new things.

That's not part of the Big Bang theory. Please critique the actual theory rather than a straw-man parody of it.

In the book i own its says that space, time, and matter was created during the big bang. If the Big Bang didn't create matter out of nothing. Where did the stuff that created the big bang come from? The thing that always get me is where did everything come from? It always says heat and energy mixed to create the universe, where did the heat and energy come from. By the way this is not all part of the big bang theory, just theroys that have been developed by different scientist. I would really like to debate this more but got a football game tonight so after that. i will try and reason my explaination some might not make any sense. Do you think i should make a new thread about how the universe started since this really has nothing to do with how old the Earth is.

I've never seen God perform that either... interesting 'neh?

Yeah you win there.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You should really cut down on the rudeness. I'm not sure how you got lucky enough to get Q in such an obliging mood, but I would have torn you a new one by now. You have no idea what you are saying, much less what you are reading, and you respond by calling it "nonsense".

I won't even comment on what kind of poor cognitive skills to say in the same breath that you don't understand something and that it's nonsense. You have access to a compitent teacher willing to cater to your ignorance, and you are just being a jerk about it. You *should* take full advantage of it.

Swoonage

I mean... I was talking about myself when i say to cut down on irrelevent nonsense... mostly

Will I ever stop?

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Casey

Agreed.

Gsus_Rawks, your immaturity in this discussion is very, very apparent, being displayed through your rudeness. How old are you?

Read my blog.

[Wesley7777]

Why not just say your age and not act stupid in a thread that is meant or serious deabate. ohh and by the way he is 13

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

Why not just say your age and not act stupid in a thread that is meant or serious deabate.

That was said on post 100 or somthing. Fairly far back. I thought you were being stupid. I guess you didnt read it.

ohh and by the way he is 13

Yup ... OR so you think.. Mua ha ha. (Its not like I have had a birthday or anything...)

----------------------------

And people arent taking me seriously in this debate. They refuse to argue against most of my stronger points...

So thats why towards the end I began to be a purposeful idiot.

[Wesley7777]

Yeah JerryLove said it i was talking about the read my blog comment was just a little childish.

And since you have only been here about 2 months i was hoping you haven't had any birthdays.

Now with all that said lets get back on topic

HOw old is the Earth?

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Fred_space

So God may have put the first single celled life forms on earth, or maybe they evolved out of floating rocky things, or from clay. But evolution is happening however you think life got here in the first place.

Microevolution (variation withing species) is happening. There has not been one offical example of macroevolution (one species changing into another)

Give me an example of macro evolution and I will be very happy.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

Yeah JerryLove said it i was talking about the read my blog comment was just a little childish.

And since you have only been here about 2 months i was hoping you haven't had any birthdays.

Now with all that said lets get back on topic

HOw old is the Earth?

As I said earlier, about 6-10k years. I cant believe any longer because there is no evedence to support it. All I have found in the Bible I have found true, the Bible says the earth is about 6-10k years old....

Read my other few pages worth of posts if you are confused.

[Wesley7777]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

As I said earlier, about 6-10k years. I cant believe any longer because there is no evedence to support it. All I have found in the Bible I have found true, the Bible says the earth is about 6-10k years old....

Read my other few pages worth of posts if you are confused.

I was saying lets get back on topic i know whats going on, but if we get off topic mods like to close threads like this. I see your position and the position the other debaters and know whats happening. Now about the evolution theory about never occuring macro evolution i am not sure about. Let me do a little research.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

I was saying lets get back on topic i know whats going on, but if we get off topic mods like to close threads like this. I see your position and the position the other debaters and know whats happening. Now about the evolution theory about never occuring macro evolution i am not sure about. Let me do a little research.

Ok. Make sure its from a trustable source. National Geoggraphic lies alot. The claimed that there was a 10,000 year old cave man, they only found a small fraction of a skull. Its impossible to tellw ith that kind of data. They only give you onesided facts.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by http://atheism.about.com/b/a/053008.htm

The distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is primarily an artifact created by ignorant creationists. There are no logical or biological barriers which prevent small changes (micro-evolution) from becoming larger changes (macro-evolution). William Nowers may try to describe the broad label of evolution as a "fraud" where scientists are attempting to mislead people, but all he has really succeeded in doing is demonstrating that he doesn't understand how biological evolution is defined and described by scientists.

The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution deals with small changes within a species which adapt that species to be better suited to its environment. This process is well supported with scientific evidence and doesn't conflict with a Christian understanding of reality.

Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another, so over a long period of time fish could evolve into insects, birds and mammals. From this concept it's suggested that all life could have evolved from simple chemical structures, thus life could have resulted from natural processes without the need for a creator.

-http://everystudent.com/wires/evolution.html

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by http://atheism.about.com/b/a/053008.htm

How many examples of macro-evolution are known to be true? Can you say "zero"? Not a single proven example of macro-evolution, one species evolving to a higher species, has existed in all of recorded history, about the past 5,000 years.
Can you say "ignorance"? There have been quite a few examples of speciation, or macro-evolution, observed in both the field and the lab. Evolution, whether micro- or macro-, is an observed fact of life. It doesn't matter how often people like William Nowers keep repeating that it doesn't happen because life isn't limited by such people's limited knowledge or imagination. Sadly, some people reading that newspaper may actually believe what Nowers wrote. I wonder if they publish similar letters preaching the nonsense of flat earth?

How about prviding one example?

I hate it when the Internet doesnt know what its talking about.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Everything on "http://home.wlu.edu/~corritoner/bio182/log.html" is messed up. This is all microevolution. Variation amongst species.

[fallinguprawks]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Mutation has been observed in every form of life we've looked at. Morphological changes are observed, I would say, in most. Speciation has been observed pretty accross the board including salmon, chiclids, rats, grapes, and goatsbeard.

Mutations are not genetically passed down, and I have yet to see a beneficial one.

Originally Posted by I

Alright how do you explain away the fact that enzymes and substrates had to have developed simultaneously? They co-exist. Our bodies have thousands different kinds of them, and without any given one of them for one minute could really mess us up or kill us. Also, what about other co-existent things, such as animals and plants? We rely on eachother for oxygen and carbon dioxide, and could not develop or survive long without eachother.

Why has no one adressed this?

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by fallinguprawks

Mutations are not genetically passed down, and I have yet to see a beneficial one.

I agree to the above statement.

Why has no one adressed this?

They know its true. They know they are wrong. as with my experiance, they never adress good arguements.