The Ruckers Forum

Forum » Rugby » General Stuff » While we are digging up the past.....
Login to reply
 
 
 
3426 Topic: While we are digging up the past.....
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 16:14:29

Some here will recall the Days when Saffex posted as Dave S, and Jalapeno posted as Rooinek. In those Days Rooinek thought Dave was a moron, and frequently told him so. In fact he called Dave S, Dave Stupid and constantly reminded Dave of what a "half wit" he was.

 

Pathetically Dave just came back for more. He loved his RooiAAS and wanted to be part of his team.

 

Finally Dave's persistence was rewarded. Now RooiAAS leans heavily on the "half wit" and Dave's best friend is the guy who called him Dave Stupid.

 

Sad , hey?
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 16:25:24

Ah Rooinek how the hell could you call me stupid - shame on you - I hate you!

 

True to form Moffie lying again - half wit never came into it.......I remember the Dave Stupid bit, that was tongue in cheek and stemmed from my pro Bob Skinstad and Rooinek having him down as Barbie
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 16:30:42

Sure Dave....and when you ran down Nonu and a NZ chappie took offence.....RooiAAS told him to relax and remember the source? That was because he rated you?

 

Man it's pathetic to see the beaten wife syndrome in a poster.
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 16:53:43

Oh Moffie grow up, neither Rooinek or I are pathetic enough to recall every bargie we ever had. Difference is we saw the bargie for what is was and got on famously. I met him in person and that re enforced the bond and deep affection, bordering on love that I felt for him, despite his anti Bobby!!

 

Now Moffie, if you had smiled a little more, we might have shared the same bond - I miss what we could have had!!!!
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 17:05:17

Well it's nice for you, you apparently consumated all your feelings with the Neck. But I must say this puts your affection for big, young chaps in a different perspective.
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 17:09:33

Moffie are you feeling a little jealous!!?
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 17:13:30

No I am happy for you. It's also an act of courage for you and the neck to come out in this honest way.
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 17, 2013, 17:14:54

Thanks Moffie you are so kind!!
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 10:54:46
I remember those days well, Moffie, and it was always very interesting to me how different posters back then responded to a bit of teasing or a wind-up.

I don't believe it's any coincidence that the valuable contributors on the old SuperSport site who actually knew a thing or two about rugby - guys like Weepee, Baard and Dave S - all responded to Rooinek in almost the same way . . . they all took him with a smile and a pinch of salt and they all gave back as good as they got. Weepee and Dave S saw the funny side of it when I tried to wind them up or when I called them "Weepy" and "Dave Stupid" respectively and they both became good cyber mates.

Then there were the clowns who knew very little about rugby and couldn't handle the slightest bit of banter, teasing or criticism . . . I'm basically talking about you and your pack of Servile Gimps, Moffie, but there were a few others as well. In your case, when I needled you for a reaction you immediately started boasting and bragging about your IQ, your car, your education, your house, your position in the Vegemite company and too many other things to mention. Baboon-ou's response was to squawk and squeal in a high-pitched voice and say very stupid things (pretty much exactly as he is today), Ou Maaik just got a glazed look in his eyes and drooled a bit more than usual while Dense sulked and got all vindictive and vengeful . . . also pretty much the same as he is today.

So just to clear things up a bit for you, "Dave Stupid" was actually a friendly nick I used for Dave S/Saffex, he knew it and we were both able to have a good laugh about it over a drink or two when I met up with him in London about two years ago. In rather stark contrast however, when I called you a pompous and deceitful braggart and I called your Servile Gimps a bunch of pathetic suck-ups, I meant every word and I've seen nothing all these years later to change my mind.

Hope that clears it up for you, Moffie.


Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 14:04:56

Hey rootiwt you are behaving like a slope headed neanderthal!  Hahahahahaha or how about a drooling slack jawed halffit.

Anyhow nice to see you out of the closet at last after all this coaxing!
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 14:16:05

But before you get all uptight rooitiwt read about the hoax which you most likely have swallowed hook line and sinker:

 

In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic
Human Ancestral Frauds
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20 Hahahahahahahahaha
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down! Hahahahahahahahaha

Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. (Hahahahahahahahaha)

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52) Hahahahahahahahaha

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983) Hahahahahahahahaha
 

 
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 15:47:17

RooiAAS the love you have for Dave does you credit. But in those days 50 was ancient and decrepit according to you.....how does it feel?
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 16:30:20

Moz I sincerely believe rooitwit has improved with age  - off a low base of course.
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 19:24:24

Moz serious question, how old are you these days?
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 18, 2013, 20:47:28

Seriously I'm sixty five.....never seen a reason to hide my age like your lover Jal.
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 19, 2013, 08:44:05

Baboon-ou, I hate to be the one to remind you of such an embarrassing incident, but weren't you the laughably naive dolt who not only believed that hilarious hoax about the dinosaur foot superimposed over a human foot but actually put it up on one of the boards as a link . . . along with the obligatory "I told you so, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah"?

 

Hmmmmm? Wasn't that you?

 

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

 

I doubt even Moffie was around at the time of the dinosaurs, Baboon-ou!

 

LMAO 
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3637		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 19, 2013, 15:32:30

Still LYAO after all these years? My you are a jovial fella!
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 19, 2013, 18:41:51

 rooitwit I posted heaps of material that had you gobstopped and some other oaks as well. It was like taking candy from ababy. Today evolution is in total disarray and only the lunatics hang on to it. You will probably find these fraudsters still mentioning the above findsin their literature! Bwahahahahahahaha. Science is turning away from this discredited nonsense. 

Be wise and do likewise. 

Rooitwit when one looks at those carvings of all those american  presidents on that mountain would you say there is any possibilty of it happening by chance? Please for once attempt to answer the question posed. I recall you never really did last time I posed some qu estionand provided material showing you the error of your ways!

 
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 19, 2013, 19:39:10

Baboon-ou, I think there is zero chance that the Mount Rushmore carvings happened by chance. I believe they were man-made. Let me guess . . . you think they were created by God? 
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 09:32:21

Roitwit you have actually mad some progress here without realising it/ The carvings at mount rushmore were done by a man. No wthe point is everyone can see tha tthey wer not a result o fnatural forces lik esun, wind and water.Here in Cape Town we have  a mountain called Lions Head. No one would suggest that the shape was carved by a man.

However the carvings on Mount Rushmore are relatively simply things. Compared even to the simplest cell (Which is profoundly complicated as scientists today realise), or compared to a pice of DNA with its 10,000 volume of coded information. Yet while you rightly say the carvings on Mount Rushmore were done by a man you so foolishly conclude things far, far more complex happend by chance.

Hahahahahhahahahahaha ou rooitwit just doesnt see the wood from the trees. Go and google intelligent design rooitwit and wise up!
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 10:34:40
Intelligent design? Oh for Pete's sake! Baboon-ou, have you still not progressed beyond discredited pseudoscience in the last 10 years?

Listen, chump, do yourself a big favour and get some new material. Concepts like "intelligent design", "irreducible complexity" and all that other anti-Evolution poppycock were discredited many years ago and no-one takes them seriously anymore. Not even Creationists still believe in that garbage. Please don't tell me you're still getting your material for your side-splitting Young Earth theories from the truly hilarious www.answersingenesis.org! Funniest website on the internet!

Jokes aside, Baboon-ou, please don't waste my time if you're still at the level of saying unbelievably stupid stuff like "Mount Rushmore was man-made therefore Evolution is disproved". If you have something new to support your laughable claims that the earth is only a few thousand years old then put it up but spare me your ignorant references to these silly theories that have about as much relevance as the Flat Earth Society.

Oh and Baboon-ou, please don't lie about who has dodged questions on this topic until you finally summon up the courage to answer the question you have been dodging for about a decade now. You have still never attempted to answer my question to you regarding Noah and the various creatures he managed to get on to his alleged "Ark". Specifically, what were a breeding pair of Arctic foxes, South American jaguars, Bengal tigers and Australian wombats all doing hanging around Mount Ararat in the same in a habitat that couldn't possibly support them? Answer that and then we can start talking about the logistics of keeping a pair of every land animal species on earth (including dinosaurs according to you Young Earth Cretins!) on a wooden boat, how Noah fed them and how he managed to keep the carnivores away from the herbivores.



ROTFLMAO!!!


DbDraad

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 409		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 11:10:34

 
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 11:25:00

Nice one Draadtrekker but please note, that picture of yours would be relevant if we were dealing with normal Creationists and it would explain why dinosaurs . . . ummmm . . . missed the boat so to speak . . . but please note that Baboon-ou is not just a Creationist, he's a Young Earth Creationist.

 

The Young Earth Creationists believe the earth is only a few thousand years old so the discovery of dinosaur fossils created a bit of a problem for them. They cannot dispute the hard evidence of the fossils and the fact that dinosaurs roamed the earth at some point so they've incorporated dinosaurs into the book of Genesis and included them among all the animals who made it onto Noah's Ark. After the Flood, these dinosaurs apparently co-existed with man and the other animals for a short while (long enough to drop off a few fossils and bones anyway) until they mysteriously vanished. You'll have to ask Baboon-ou what happened that caused selected species like the dinosaurs to disappear a few thousand years ago leaving the rest of us to live happily ever after.

 

I promise you I'm not making any of this up. Baboon-ou will tell you himself that dinosaurs and man co-existed at one point in history. If you're very lucky, he might even put up a link to a picture of a dinosaur footprint that is more recent than a human footprint underneath it that proves the rest of us are all idiots.
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:07:26

Please not eI ahve never stated i am a young or ol dcreationist. I simpl;y provide evidenceo fthe earth being far younger than suppsoed. evidence which was notrefuted of course.

Now stop babbling away rooitwit and read the following:

 

Genome Research Is Demolishing the 'First Cell That Formed by Chance' Deception
The theory of evolution maintains, on the basis of no scientific foundation whatsoever, that at a time when there was still no life on Earth, inanimate substances came together to give rise to the first living organism. (Hahahahahahahahahaha) According to this evolutionist claim, the first living organism must have had a sufficiently simple structure to have been able to form by chance.
The fact is, however, that Darwinists ARE UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW EVEN A SINGLE PROTEIN EMERGED.
The fact that a single protein cannot form spontaneously is one that in any case totally demolishes the theory of evolution. But even if we assume for a moment that this impossibility did actually come about, we still see that the “primitive cell” (As ignorantly claimed by Darwinists) eliminates with absolutely certainty the possibility of life coming into being spontaneously. Data provided by science in the 21st century shows that even the life form with the very simplest structure is in fact highly complex, and that it is practically impossible for it to emerge spontaneously and by chance.
Genome research supplies this information. Based on the idea that living things with the smallest genome (extremophiles and eubacteria) have the least complexity, scientists have calculated the probabilities of these organisms appearing by chance and spontaneously. Another point needing clarification here is this: scientists also regard these organisms as the oldest life forms on Earth.
Genome research revealed that the lowest number of proteins required for life was between 250 and 450.[1]In other words, the minimum number of different proteins that would have to combine together at the same time in order to give rise to the structural features of the cell and performs its basic functions is between 250 and 450.
It also needs to be made clear that this minimum number of 250-450 protein is the number of proteins obtained from microbes living parasitically. The minimum number of proteins needed in order for an organism to live independently of another is around 1500. In other words, Darwinists have to account for the separate existence of 1500 different proteins needed to give rise to a single functioning cell. But, to reiterate, Darwinists are unable to account for the emergence of even a single protein.
It is totally impossible for between 250 and 1500 different proteins required for an organism to be considered as living to form spontaneously and at the same time. Probability calculations on the subject are given in the following table: 
 
Minimum Protein Number[2]
Probability of Emerging Simultaneously
250
1018,750
350
1026,250
500
1037,500
1,500
10112,500
1,900
10142,500

As the above table shows, the probability of a living organism with the least protein forming by chance is 1 in 1018,750. (In order to grasp the vast size of this number, it will be useful to remember that the total number of atoms in the universe is 1078.) In other words, there is no chance at all. Despite all these calculations and scientific data, evolutionists still insist on believing in the impossible. The sole reason for that insistence is their determination to deny the existence of Almighty GoD, Who created all things out of nothing. 
Morowitz’s probability calculation
The probability calculations cited above are in agreement with a calculation by the biophysicist Harold Morowitz. He assumed he had broken all the chemical bonds in the E. coli bacterium and released all the atoms comprising it, and then calculated the probability of these atoms spontaneously recombining to give rise to the E. coli once again. In this theoretical experiment, all the atoms required are present in all the appropriate quantities, and it is assumed that no other atom can become involved from the outside. Nonetheless, he calculated that the chances of all the atoms coming together spontaneously in a specific order, despite their being in the appropriate numbers and in an appropriate environment, in such a way as to produce an E. coli bacterium was 1 in 10100,000,000,000.[3]This goes far beyond being merely impossible. Such a number reveals the impossibility of even the least complex organism in the universe forming by chance, even if all the conditions and materials are brought together.
 
A sufficient number of proteins combining together is not sufficient for life to emerge
Let us imagine we have all the proteins necessary for life ready to hand. The existence of these proteins, which cannot come about in this way, IS NOT ENOUGH FOR EVEN A SINGLE CELL TO FORM. Microbiologists and biochemists explicitly say that the organization of these proteins within the cell is also highly important, otherwise the proteins will serve no purpose. Moreover, as Darwinist scientists know full well, the cell possesses organelles that manufacture proteins and a glorious DNA data bank far more complex than proteins. A living cell is made possible by all these structures possessing the same function and organization at the same time, and acting with the same consciousness. This is a fact that demolishes Darwinism.
The fact that bacteria possess an extraordinary internal organization was unknown until the 1990s. The fact is, however, that the complex cells (eukaryotic) comprising single-cell protozoans are known to be made up of a nucleus, organelles, membrane systems, a cytoskeleton, several internal sections and other contents organizing the content of the cell on the molecular level.[4]All these systems are extraordinarily complex. One cannot function independently of the others.
Conclusion
As the information provided here shows, microbiology, biochemistry and genome research, all the main scientific advances in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century in short, have eradicated all the claims of the theory of evolution. These scientific conclusions have revealed that Darwinism is totally unscientific and consists of claims that are far removed from science. Science has refuted evolutionist claims regarding “a very simple fist living organism.” Aside from the minimum number of proteins and minimum complexity needed for it to be alive, an organism is too complex to be explained by evolutionist claims of chance and possesses a perfect organization. In addition to all this complexity, the existence of a single cell brings the theory of evolution to a complete halt.
 
The Glorious Irreducible Complexity In The Synthesis Of A Single Protein
  • Sixty special proteins acting as enzymes are needed to make a single protein inside the cell.
  • If just one of these enzymes needed for protein synthesis is missing, the cell cannot produce proteins.
  • The proteins that serve in protein synthesis are therefore indispensible, they all have to be present in order to manufacture a single protein and they all constitute an irreducibly complex system.  
  • In addition, it is not enough for these 60 enzymes to exist at the same time, they all also have to be present in the same small region within the cell.  
  • They all have to be co-ordinated and directed in the right location.
  • Furthermore, all the organelles inside the cell have to be in the right place and have to fully discharge their functions for this. Because all the organelles in the cell are involved in all the stages of protein synthesis. If the other organelles do not perform all their functions, then protein synthesis cannot happen since important functions will not take place.
  • The formation of a single protein in an single, exhibits a glorious irreducible complexity. And Darwinists are unable to account for the events that take place for a single protein.   

Well its really game over and case closed.

Some folk like to believe in the tooth fairy I guess. Bwahahahhahahahahaha. How daft does one get!

Rooinek please step ou of the past and get in line with modern science. You are behaving like a fossil! Hahahahahahhahahahaha

If its not Piltdown man it some other lie to deceive the gullible..

Now instead of bleating away hopelessly rooitwit adress the issues raised above or forever hold your peace.

Darwinism is dead. End of.
Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:11:41

Beenkop, you really are a dunce
DbDraad

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 409		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:32:30

 Religion and science are 2 entirely different disciplines and the one cannot be used to proof/refute the other. When people endeavor to do so it leads to all sorts of stupid debates. Theological scholars and scientist cannot even concur on subjects in their own disciplines, so how do they intend to do so across fields?  Most people believe what they want to, regardless of the facts. Pointless to even try.
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:39:39

Typical, Baboon-ou dumps a whole load of copy and paste garbage that he scraped off one of his laughable bible-thumping websites and pretends he's answered any questions posed to him.

 

Baboon-ou, I gather from the incoherent and poorly constructed babbling in your first paragraph that you don't consider yourself to be a Young Earth Creationist yet you do believe that the earth is far younger than people suppose. Is that correct? Just how much younger would you say, Baboon-ou? Most scientists believe the figure provided by radiometric age dating which has the earth's age at 4.54 billion years. What is your number, Baboon-ou?
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:49:03

Oh and Baboon-ou, please note that your stupid little copy and paste job didn't even begin to address the specific question I asked you about Noah and the animals. Please remember this reluctance to answer a simple question (which you have dodged for several years now) the next time you have a little snivel because nasty old Jalapeno doesn't answer your questions. Okay?
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:49:35

Rooitwit the post above is about could a simple cell evolve. Its not abou time. The facts are clear it couldnt possibly have evolved.

So who made it.

Next I process to demolish ou rooitwits last remaining hope and that is that matter is eternal. Nobody created matter according to rooitwit as it has always exisyed. Unfortunately modern science has turned its back on that one as well. Hahaahahahhahahahahahahaha

The end of rooitwits last hope - crash goes the ocillating universe theory. Read this rooitiwt and ge tup to speed.

 

MODERN ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE:
THE STEADY STATE AND OSCILLATING UNIVERSE THEORIES
One theory that was offered in an attempt to establish the eternality of the Universe was the Steady State model, propagated by Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleagues. Even before they offered this unusual theory, however, scientific evidence had been discovered which indicated that the Universe was expanding. Hoyle set forth the Steady State model to: (a) erase any possibility of a beginning; (b) bolster the idea of an eternal Universe; and (c) explain why the Universe was expanding. His idea was that at certain points in the Universe (which he called “irtrons”), matter was being created spontaneously from nothing. Since this new matter had to “go” somewhere, and since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, it pushed the already-existing matter further into distant space. Dr. Hoyle asserted that this process of matter continually being created (the idea even came to be known as the “continuous creation” theory) avoided any beginning or ending, and simultaneously accounted for the expansion of the Universe.
For a time, Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis was quite popular. Eventually, however, it was discarded for a number of reasons. Cosmologist John Barrow has suggested that the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle and his colleagues sprang “...from a belief that the universe did not have a beginning.... The specific theory they proposed fell into conflict with observation long ago...” (1991, p. 46). Indeed, the Steady State theory did fall into “conflict with observation” for a number of reasons. First, empirical observations no longer fit the model (see Gribbin, 1986). Second, new theoretical concepts being proposed were at odds with the Steady State model. And third, it violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed in nature. Jastrow commented on this last point when he wrote:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact. Yet the proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end (1977, p. 32).
The Steady State model, with its creation of matter from nothing, could not be reconciled with this basic law of science, and thus was abandoned.
Slowly but surely, the Big Bang model of the origin of the Universe replaced the Steady State theory. It postulated that all the matter/energy in the observable Universe was condensed into a particle much smaller than a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg,” or “ylem” as it frequently is called). The Big Bang model, however, suffered from at least two major problems. First, it required that whatever made up the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highly regarded evolutionary cosmologist, voiced the opinion of many when he wrote: “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?” (1976, pp. 15-16).
Second, the expansion of the Universe could not go on forever; it had to end somewhere. These problems suggested to evolutionists that they were living in a Universe that had a beginning, and that would have an ending. Robert Jastrow addressed both of these points: “And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up” (1978, pp 48-49). It was apparent that matter could not be eternal, because, as everyone knows, eternal things do not run down. Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future. And eternal entities do not have either beginnings or endings.
In a desperate effort to avoid any vestige of a beginning or any hint of an ending, evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/Collapse model, etc.). Dr. Gribbin suggested that “...the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp. 15-16).
That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a Big Crunch, at which time the matter of the Universe will collapse back onto itself. There will be a “bounce,” followed by another Big Bang, which will be followed by another Big Crunch, and this process will be repeated ad infinitum. In the Big Bang model, there is a permanent end; not so in the Oscillating Universe model, as Dr. Jastrow explained:
But many astronomers reject this picture of a dying Universe. They believe that the expansion of the Universe will not continue forever because gravity, pulling back on the outward-moving galaxies, must slow their retreat. If the pull of gravity is sufficiently strong, it may bring the expansion to a halt at some point in the future.
What will happen then? The answer is the crux of this theory. The elements of the Universe, held in a balance between the outward momentum of the primordial explosion and the inward force of gravity, stand momentarily at rest; but after the briefest instant, always drawn together by gravity, they commence to move toward one another. Slowly at first, and then with increasing momentum, the Universe collapses under the relentless pull of gravity. Soon the galaxies of the Cosmos rush toward one another with an inward movement as violent as the outward movement of their expansion when the Universe exploded earlier. After a sufficient time, they come into contact; their gases mix; their atoms are heated by compression; and the Universe returns to the heat and chaos from which it emerged many billions of years ago (1978, p. 118).
The description provided by Jastrow is that commonly referred to in the literature as the “Big Crunch.” But the obvious question is this. After that, then what? Once again, hear Dr. Jastrow:
No one knows. Some astronomers say the Universe will never come out of this collapsed state. Others speculate that the Universe will rebound from the collapse in a new explosion, and experience a new moment of Creation. According to this view, our Universe will be melted down and remade in the caldron of the second Creation. It will become an entirely new world, in which no trace of the existing Universe remains....
This theory envisages a Cosmos that oscillates forever, passing through an infinite number of moments of creation in a never-ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. It unites the scientific evidence for an explosive moment of creation with the concept of an eternal Universe. It also has the advantage of being able to answer the question: What preceded the explosion? (1978, pp. 119-120).
This, then, is the essence of the Oscillating Universe theory. Several questions arise, however. First, of what benefit would such events be? Second, is such a concept scientifically testable? Third, does current scientific evidence support such an idea?
Of what benefit would a Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario be? Theoretically, as I already have noted, the benefit to evolutionists is that they do not have to explain a Universe with an absolute beginning or an absolute ending. A cyclical Universe that infinitely expands and contracts is obviously much more acceptable than one that demands explanations for both its origin and destiny. Practically, there is no benefit that derives from such a scenario. The late astronomer from Cornell University, Carl Sagan, noted: “...[I]nformation from our universe would not trickle into that next one and, from our vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as definitive and depressing an end as the expansion that never stops” (1979, pp 13-14).
But is the Oscillating Universe model testable scientifically? Gribbin suggests that it is.
The key factors which determine the ultimate fate of the Universe are the amount of matter it contains and the rate at which it is expanding.... In simple terms, the Universe can only expand forever if it is exploding faster than the “escape velocity” from itself.... If the density of matter across the visible Universe we see today is sufficient to halt the expansion we can observe today, then the Universe has always been exploding at less than its own escape velocity, and must eventually be slowed down so much that the expansion is first halted and then converted into collapse. On the other hand, if the expansion we observe today is proceeding fast enough to escape from the gravitational clutches of the matter we observe today, then the Universe is and always was “open” and will expand forever (1981, p. 313).
Does the scientific evidence support the theory of an “oscillating,” eternal Universe? The success or failure of this theory depends, basically, on two things: (1) the amount of matter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough matter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch; and (2) the amount of gravity available to do the “pulling.” The amount of matter required by the theory is one reason why Gribbin admitted: “This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today, the puzzle of the so-called missing mass” (1981, pp. 315-316). [Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers refer to the missing mass as “dark matter.” In their book, Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot and Keay Davidson remarked: “We are therefore forced to contemplate the fact that as much as 90 percent of the matter in the universe is both invisible and quite unknown—perhaps unknowable—to us…. Are such putative forms of matter the fantasies of desperate men and women, frantically seeking solutions to baffling problems? Or are they a legitimate sign that with the discovery of dark matter cosmology finds itself in a terra incognita beyond our immediate comprehension?” (1993, pp. 164,171).] In his June 25, 2001 Time article (which claims to “solve the biggest mystery in the cosmos”), Michael D. Lemonick dealt with this “puzzle.”
As the universe expands, the combined gravity from all the matter within it tends to slow that expansion, much as the earth’s gravity tries to pull a rising rocket back to the ground. If the pull is strong enough, the expansion will stop and reverse itself; if not, the cosmos will go on getting bigger, literally forever. Which is it? One way to find out is to weigh the cosmos—to add up all the stars and all the galaxies, calculate their gravity and compare that with the expansion rate of the universe. If the cosmos is moving at escape velocity, no Big Crunch.
Trouble is, nobody could figure out how much matter there actually was. The stars and galaxies were easy; you could see them. But it was noted as early as the 1930s that something lurked out there besides the glowing stars and gases that astronomers could see. Galaxies in clusters were orbiting one another too fast; they should, by rights, be flying off into space like untethered children flung from a fast-twirling merry-go-round. Individual galaxies were spinning about their centers too quickly too; they should long since have flown apart. The only possibility: some form of invisible dark matter was holding things together, and while you could infer the mass of dark matter in and around galaxies, nobody knew if it also filled the dark voids of space, where its effects would not be detectable (2001, 157[25]:51)
In discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers speak of a “closed” or an “open” Universe. If the Universe is closed, the Big Crunch could theoretically occur, and an oscillating Universe becomes a viable possibility. If the Universe is open, the expansion of the Universe will continue (a condition known as the Big Chill) and the Big Crunch will not occur, making an oscillating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk commented: “The balance of evidence does point to an open model of the universe...” (1980, p. 309, emp. added). Gribbin says: “The consensus among astronomers today is that the universe is open” (1981, p. 316, emp. added). Jastrow observed: “Thus, the facts indicate that the universe will expand forever....” (1978, p. 123, emp. added). Even more recent evidence seems to indicate that an oscillating Universe is a physical impossibility (see Chaisson, 1992). Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler drew the following conclusion based on the scientific evidence available at the time: “With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Never out of the equations of general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end” (1977, p. 15). As Ross admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to avoid a theistic beginning for the universe all fail” (1991, p. 105). In an article written for the January 19, 1998 issue of U.S. News and World Report (“A Few Starry and Universal Truths”), Charles Petit stated:
For years, cosmologists have wondered if the universe is “closed” and will collapse to a big crunch, or “open,” with expansion forever in the cards. It now seems open—in spades. The evidence, while not ironclad, is plentiful. Neta Bahcall of Princeton University and her colleagues have found that the distribution of clusters of galaxies at the perceivable edge of the universe imply that the universe back then was lighter than often had been believed. There appears to be 20 percent as much mass as would be needed to stop the expansion and lead the universe to someday collapse again (124[2]:58, emp. added).
Apparently, the information appearing in the June 25, 2001 Time article is “ironclad,” and has dealt the ultimate “death blow” to the idea of either an eternal or oscillating Universe. In speaking about the origin of the Universe, Lemonick explained:
That event—the literal birth of time and space some 15 billion years ago—has been understood, at least in its broadest outlines, since the 1960s. But in more than a third of a century, the best minds in astronomy have failed to solve the mystery of what happens at the other end of time. Will the galaxies continue to fly apart forever, their glow fading until the cosmos is cold and dark? Or will the expansion slow to a halt, reverse direction and send 10 octillion (10 trillion billion) stars crashing back together in a final, apocalyptic Big Crunch, the mirror image of the universe’s explosive birth? Despite decades of observations with the most powerful telescopes at their disposal, astronomers simply haven’t been able to decide (157[25]:49).
But a series of remarkable discoveries announced in quick succession starting this spring has gone a long way toward settling the question once and for all. Scientists who were betting on a Big Crunch liked to quote the poet Robert Frost: “Some say the world will end in fire,/some say in ice./From what I’ve tasted of desire/ I hold with those who favor fire.” Those in the other camp preferred T.S. Eliot: “This is the way the world ends./Not with a bang but a whimper.” Now, using observations from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey in New Mexico, the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope, the mammoth Keck Telescope in Hawaii, and sensitive radio detectors in Antarctica, the verdict is in: T.S. Eliot wins (157[25]:49-50).
What, exactly, has caused this current furor in astronomy? And why are T.S. Eliot and the astronomers who quote him the “winners”? As Lemonick went on to explain:
If these observations continue to hold up, astrophysicists can be pretty sure they have assembled the full parts list for the cosmos at last: 5% ordinary matter, 35% exotic dark matter and about 60% dark energy. They also have a pretty good idea of the universe’s future. All the matter put together doesn’t have enough gravity to stop the expansion; beyond that, the antigravity effect of dark energy is actually speeding up the expansion. And because the amount of dark energy will grow as space gets bigger, its effect will only increase (157[25]:55).
The fact is, the Universe simply does not have enough matter, or enough gravity, for it to collapse back upon itself in a “Big Crunch.” It is not “oscillating.” It is not eternal. It had a beginning, and it will have an ending. As Jastrow observed: “About thirty years ago science solved the mystery of the birth and death of stars, and acquired new evidence that the Universe had a beginning.... Now both theory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe and a beginning in time” (1978, p. 105). Six pages later in God and the Astronomers, Jastrow concluded: “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (p. 111).
In 1929, Sir James Jeans, writing in his classic book The Universe Around Us, observed: “All this makes it clear that the present matter of the universe cannot have existed forever.... In some way matter which had not previously existed, came, or was brought, into being” (1929, p. 316). Now, over seventy years later we have returned to the same conclusion. As Lemonick put it:
If the latest results do hold up, some of the most important questions in cosmology—how old the universe is, what it’s made of and how it will end—will have been answered, only about 70 years after they were first posed. By the time the final chapter of cosmic history is written—further in the future than our minds can grasp—humanity, and perhaps even biology, will long since have vanished (157[25]:56).
The fact that Time magazine devoted an entire cover (and feature story to go with it) to the topics of “How the Universe Will End,” is an inadvertent admission to something that evolutionists have long tried to avoid—the fact that the Universe had a beginning, and will have an ending. When one hears Sir James Jeans allude to the fact that “in some way matter which had not previously existed, came, or was brought, into being,” the question that immediately comes to mind is: Who brought it into being?
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 12:54:56

snapster this discussion is far too advanced for you. You battled to realise what victor's real weight was. No doubt you also believe in the fairy tale of evolution. Bwahahahahahahahaha

How gullible does one get! 

Draad here was a man who accepted what the facts showed him:

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted,

Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”


Saffex

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 4829		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 13:02:09

Beenkop your command of the English language clearly confirms what a stupid twit you are. Do you read your posts before you press submit - wake up man, its piss poor
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 13:09:40
Actually Draad, this wasn't originally about religion or the existence of God, this all started some years ago as a purely scientific debate about the age of the earth. Since then Baboon-ou has consistently brought his god and the bible into the argument to back up his laughably naive and stupid claims and he's the one mixing up religion with science. I'm more than happy to stick to the original argument regarding the earth's age and I've put up my number and where I got it from. Baboon-ou is busy ducking and diving and pretending to answer questions by copying and pasting loads of garbage written by very stupid people.

Baboon-ou, seeing as you refuse to answer my very simple question about Noah and the Ark, I'll try another one . . . tell me, if someone gave you a whole load of reading material and said to you that once you'd finished reading it, you'd believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, would you bother reading that material?


Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 13:46:31

Please snapster and rooitwit we all know that you cannot answer any of the material presented and comments re a spelling error etc is a desperate avoidance game as usual. Deal with the material

Hahahahahhaha

Its always the same the oaks just cant answer the facts. Rooinek before ones gets onto what you think the bible says we first need to deal with whether there is a God and whether evolution has disproved his existence.   Science has knocked your occilating theory for  a six. What now. The simple cell couldnt possibly exist. What now. Where did matter come from. How did matter come to be alive.

You know so much this should be easy. Bwahahahahahhahahahaha

Listen rooitwit take a leaf out of Einsteins book and just acknowledge the creator's did it. There is no other choice that rationally can be yours.

Time you did a Flew. He was one of the leading atheists in the world:

 


Anthony Flew: alternative spelling: Antony Flew.
Flew was the son of a Methodist minister. He became an atheist at the age of 15 and was for fifty years one of the world's leading proponents of atheism. He taught philosophy at prestigious universities including Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain. He lectured around the world and wrote many important books and articles proclaiming atheism and the impossibility of God. In 2004 he changed his mind, explaining in the video "Has Science Discovered God?" that based on scientific principles he believes there must be a God who is responsible for creating life as we know it. He further outlined his new position in the 2005 edition of his book God and Philosophy. Flew's concept of God is a pointedly Deist one. He specifically said he believes in "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." [Source: The Secular Web; URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369] As for reports that he had been attending Quaker meetings, Flew explained that he had attended only 3 or 4 Quaker meetings, one of which was his cousin's wedding. He said the main attraction in Quakerism for him was "the lack of doctrines." The significance of the shift in Flew's thinking should not be exaggerated. He did not formally join a religious denomination, nor is his overall thinking substantially different from what it had been, aside from the fact that he used to believe in atheism and he now believes there must be a God.
From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004; (URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976):

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up,"

 
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 13:53:47

Haha! Baboon-ou talking about other people avoiding questions! LMAO! You couldn't actually make this up!
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 14:22:37

Rooitwit I am presenting material fo your consideration. I debunk the basis of your views (the occilating universe) but as always you ignore it all. ou snapster roars to your defence but all h ecan do is bleat on abou tsome spelling error. Its all not very convincing from you two dopes.

Address the issues please rooitwit. I am needing a good laugh this afternoon.

Its always the same. Beeno has no idea, bleat, bleat, bleat but nothing in response to what I post. Very evidently ou rooitwit is stumped yet again. Bwahahahahahaahhaha

Its like taking candy from a baby.

 
Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 14:46:13
No Baboon-ou, you're not debunking anything, you're just avoiding questions in the most pathetic and cowardly manner imaginable.

Try answering my question about how old you think the earth is. You say you're not a Young Earth Creti . . . I mean Creationist . . . but at the same time you also state that you think the earth is a lot younger than most people suppose. So how young is that exactly? What is your guess, Baboon-ou? Approximately. Just a ballpark figure will do. 10 000 years? 100 000 years? A million years maybe?

Now, try to actually answer the question and note that copying and pasting mounds of drivel that no-one will ever read is not actually answering the question. I don't want to know what some Happy Clappy website thinks, I'd like to know what you think. The same applies to my question about Noah rounding up all the animals from all corners of the earth, keeping them all fed for however long the flood lasted and making sure the carnivores (including T-Rexs and Velociraptors) didn't eat all the herbivores. Again, I'd like to know your thoughts on how Noah achieved that, not what the morons at www.answersingenesis.org say.

Understand now, Baboon-ou?


Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 21, 2013, 15:41:23

Rooitwit. we are busy with the foundational issues. I.E Rooitwit we are addressing the very BIG issues.

Now I am saying to you, and have presented evidence, that matter is NOT eternal as you have been arguing. If it is not eternal where did it come from.

I also ask, given the evidence I have presented, how did matter begin to live. There is no chance even the simplest cell could have evolved. If the simplist cell couldnt have evolved how did it come into being.
 

Stick with the programme rooitwit and answer these two questions. 

 

 
Beeno1

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6057		 RE: While we are digging up the past.....
January 22, 2013, 12:34:06

The silence is deafening! Disappointed 2
 
 

From The Sideline