Rhett Woods

I personally have a preference towards cats, although I've never had a dog and only one cat. Also, this is a matter of opinion, not a matter of truth, so don't shred each other to...shreds over it. :P

Self-sufficiency is the quickest way to destruction. If you believe only in your infallible and incapable self, you will let yourself down eventually.

First off, I noticed that you are a proponent of the Big Bang. Consider these words by Babu Ranganathan Babu Ranganathan writes: Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That’s contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses. This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited. “The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies. Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It is one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars. Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent." Also, "Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world. An Open Letter to the Scientific Community Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do. Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry. (Just in case you question credibility, here's the way too long list of sources. John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA), James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA), Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany), Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil), Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University(Russia), Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA), Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK), Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA), Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA), Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA), Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India), Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA), Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA), Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA), Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA), Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada), Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy), Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA), Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France), Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France), Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil), Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA), R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA), Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France), Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France), Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA), Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA), David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK), Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA), Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA), Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland), Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil) I don't have any further time, as I have homework to do. I will continue later.

Evidence for Creation Pt. 1 In addition to the arguments made by my good friend Recon_Soldier96 Ok guys. I'm a Christian, saved by the grace of God. And I see no other explanation to the existence of this world other than that it was created by someone of higher power, namely, the God of the Bible. This is great. But ultimately, this means nothing unless I can't qualify my position, which I will endeavor to do now. Point I. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now, whatever is in motion is put into motion by another [i will explain this later] If that which is put in motion must itself be put into motion, then this also needs to be put into motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity...Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put into motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God." Aquinas here is saying that everything must be put into motion in this world. But this can't go on forever, there must be something that puts everything in motion. Things that exist under the laws of Physics cannot put themselves into motion, therefore it would follow that there is only one explanation as to how this could be created, namely, a divine creater Point II. Order Take a look at your room right now. Is it clean? Is it messy? Should it be messy, this is obviously disorder. Should it be clean, it is order. But ask yourself, is there a way that your room can magically become clean on its own? No, of course not! You must put energy into disorder to make order. Also, disorder never, under any circumstance in today's world, leads to order Then ask yourself two questions. Firstly, if the world is a world of order, then how could this come about by disorder? Secondly, if the world was made in disorder, there is nothing that could rule over all of created matter to put it into order. Therefore, there's no possible explanation under mortal man that disorder could have spontaneously led to order, the world had to have been created with order. This is clear in the Bible, as God is described as a God of order. The God of the universe, the God of creation, the God of the Bible, is a God of unlimited power. He is the only possible being which could put the world into order as it is now Point III. No Evidence for Evolution There is positively no credible evidence for the Theory of Evolution (Which, I may remind you, is still considered a scientific theory after three hundred years). There are interpretations of the fossil record, based on evidence that can mean many, many different things (The Great Flood of Noah, etc.) There is absolutely no evidence for evolution that isn't based on scientific guessing. (Already directed at carbon dating, as shown directly after the Mount Helens eruption in the 80's this was clearly shown to be false. I can clarify later if necessary.) However, Creationism is based off of one very key element. The breathed word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "For all Scripture is God-Breathed..." This indeed includes the account in Genesis. To those who question the credibility of the Bible, it has actually shown to be incredibly historically accurate. (Cross-Reference texts of Josephus and others) I also will clarify this argument later if any of you find fault in it. Point IV. Design Many of you may have heard of the famed fibonacci numbers. These are numbers that continue in a pattern by adding a number to it's previous number [0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.) From this is derived what some call the "Golden Rectangle" This is the most evident in the shape of a spiral, which is seen all throughout the world. (Snail Shells, the way water drains, rams horns, etc.) One final argument before I have to go for the evening, I will continue this in the morning... Point V. Complexity The world is extremely complex. Every where we look, there is complexity. In the ways molecules form, in the structure of the universe, structure of galaxies, everywhere. Under the theory of evolution, this is attempted to be explained by an accident. The most beautiful thing that has ever been crafted, and you call it an accident, a mistake? The simple complexity of the world we live in, the molecules in our body, the functions it has, all of the different classes of life, the minute differences that make us all unique, all of this. The world is so complex, there is positively no way that it could come about by random chance As a parting thought, consider this quote from former American President Ronald Reagan, "Sometimes when I'm faced with an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we have finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there's a cook." Remember guys, as cliched as this sounds. God loves you. He has given you, given all of us, a great gift. Let's not blame it on an accident In Christ, Scott Lowery