HappyCoder

They got a computer to say 'E' like a species that was extinct thousands of years ago...who is funding this?

Yeah, controlled experiments to generate specific results. Maybe at the same time life was being created a microhip was also being fabricated. Of course this chip had no way of replicating itself so it was eventually destroyed and organic life took over because it could replicate itself. There are many things that I don't understand about God. Religion doesn't really focus on what we really don't need to know. It would be nice to know how God created everything and many other things about God but that doesn't fit into why we are here.

Yeah I got my terms mixed up. I think somebody already pointed that out. I think when God creates something he doesn't just *poof* it into existance. I think he takes existing substances that are available and combines them together to form life. It is kinda like what you said about it came about by chemistry only it has somebody to give it more direction. Once God was able to engineer the first cell he could then direct them through evolution either by setting eviorments to influence natural selection and guide evolution or he could have even made some direct changes to some DNA sequences. These are just some of my ideas, I have nothing to back them up with scripturally I just try to fit my religious views with scientific ones. Keep in mind that these ideas can and will most likely change as I learn more about the world around me from both religious and scientific sources. There are something in religion that are doctrine that don't change but my ideas are definately not doctrinal ideas.

So evolution contributes to technology, technology contributes to evolution. That makes sense.

Yes. A little after posting this I realized I probably sounded like I was trying to imply that evolution could be false. Imcomplete is probably a better wording than wrong. Thank you for pointing that out.

Well I guess I may be getting my terms mixed up. But I think that you get what I am trying to say. And going along with the ID being taught in school. I am discussing the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in another forum. What I think is unless religious beliefs can be backed up with scientific fact it should not be included with science. This hasn't happened so it should still be left out. Also, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because there could be many different beliefs about intelligent design but there is no way to determine what religious view to teach. Unless one of the religious beliefs can be backed up with science through the scientific method it cannot be considered science and should not be taught in a science class. As a side note, a trap that I think people fall into is the mindset that science is always absolute truth and anything not science is absolute nonsense. This is not true. Something not scientific can be true and something scientific can be false.

I do agree with what you said about bad genes not really being bad anymore but what if there was some sort of genetic blindness that developed. Something a little worse then everybody needing glasses.

This argument does not show a problem with evolution. It only shows how little you know about evolution. If the drive behind this is for religious just keep in mind that intelligent design and evolution can both be true. I personally believe in God and was in the mindset that if evolution was false then intelligent design had to be true. First of all that isn't necessarily true. Secondly while trying to poke holes in the theory I learned a lot about it. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about it but that doesn't make it false. Just keep in mind that evolution and God can both be true. I believe that God created simple life billions of years ago and let the earth bring forth life as life evolved, and saw that it was good. I don't want this to become a Bible debate. If you disagree with what I just said lets just agree to disagree now rather than debate through many pages of posts and end up agreeing to disagree later.

Yeah, Westwood gaming studios did.

In this modern age we are able to cure many dieseazes and can keep people alive when the would have otherwise died. We are moving towards the point where everybody lives no matter what genetic or non-genetic contintions they may have. I do think this is a good thing I value all human life. I am wondering what this does for natural selection and for evolution.

Well the eyes look kinda large. Maybe they live in dark places or at night. Also, having to walk on fours, maybe the bird needs to walk through small passages that it cannot do easily standing upright. So it evolved to accommodate that.

Okay so I am bringing the expanding earth back up again. I keep on looking at the evidence and it really it hard to ignore. I keep looking through plate tectonics and abduction's and I do see how it could work, I just think an expanding earth makes more sense. Video EEEvidence The video is pretty good I think it does a good job introducing the idea. The other link has some more thorough evidence that is pretty good. I really want to have a good discussion. Just as a side note, please don't discredit the entire theory because of some people's really bad science sometimes associated with this theory(Neil Adams).

I never really like when time is explained as the fourth dimention. Let me tell you why. Whenever higher dimensions are explained the comparison of 3D to 2D is included where they push a sphere through a 2D plane and a circle appears, grows, shrinks, then disappears on the plane. I don't like the idea of time being the fourth dimention because we never see anything pop out of nowhere grow, shrink, then disappear. Comments please.

Just listened to this...should have listened to this sooner...At first I think he started off okay. Then he started trying to explain physics...Uranus orbiting because of a magnetic field? He pretty much went downhill from there, Wow. I think he is getting desperate trying to find an explanation for the expanding earth. Some of his statements sound so ridiculous that it makes it hard to listen to anything he has to say. I have come to the conclusion that an expanding earth with our understanding of science now is false. Because of the single but major problem that it has no way for the expansion to happen. I still personally believe there is good enough evidence for an expanding earth that it still is open as a possibility in my mind. I guess science with plate tectonics theory can model our earth the way it is now with more plausible means for plate movement so unless physicists are able to come up with some way for the earth to be expanding it is invalid. I hope you can at least see what I mean for the evidence for expansion and not see me as an idiot, though looking back at me coming so boldly I probably did seem like quite an idiot. I am still going to look into plate tectonics, there is a lot of information out there. Maybe I could find some explanation for why the age of the ocean is the same for the atlantic and pacific. That seems like quite the coincidence for the atlantic age pattern to be caused by spreading and generate the same pattern with the same age as the pacific only the pacific pattern is caused by the oceanic crust moving around subducting and such. I will accept the idea of subduction but I have a hard time seeing how that could form the age patterns for the ocean crust like that. I hope you see what I mean.

Thats not quite what I was looking for. Take a look at the Image again. Look at the red ring going around antartica. That is a ridge. That is where earth crust is created. We know this because the crust is younger there and surrounding crust is older. In order for new crust to be formed the old crust needs to move out of the way somehow. If you notice, there is a problem around antaritca. That seafloor created at the ridge would not be able to all fit under antartica's plate, the perimeter is smaller then that of antartica.

Okay, here is my explanation for expansion. but the explanation itself has it's own dependencies that I have no explanation for so it has nothing to stand on but here it is anyway. At first I thought that there could be a change that the mass didn't change just the overall density. Maybe there was some sort or chemical reaction happening inside the earth causing expansion. The huge problem with this theory is, as pointer out by Edtharan, the gravitational conditions would be to great for the dinosaurs to survive so even if the expansion could somehow be explained through a chemical reaction that would be a problem. The other idea is matter is being created in the core of the planet. This explanation would be more appropriate given the evidence like Sea spreads and fossils (of course mooeypoo does make a good point that though earth expansion explains it nicely it doesn't mean there isn't another alternative that will do the same) So with the given evidence matter creation is more plausible. The huge problem now comes in with the actual creation of matter. It has been done except the electron and positron created were quickly turned back into energy. This raises the question if matter were being created through some unknown process how could the matter being created stick around to actually increase the mass rather than just turning directly back into energy. This I have no explanation for. Another huge problem with this is even if the matter could be created through some unknown process where would all that energy come from? Edtharan calculated it to be 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! (Holy Batman!) Which I actually think may be a underestimate because as the mass of the earth would increase so would the average density from the increased force. In other words the volume of the planet would not grow at the same rate as the addition of matter but the increase of volume would grow at a lesser rate as mass increased. Although, one interesting thing about this theory is when matter was created it generated a enormous electromagnetic field. Link Which would explain the earths magnetic field. I personally think it makes more sense the the self perpetuating dynamo theory but there it is. Of course once I saw that the creation matter generated a large electromagnetic field like that I was interested in finding other planets other magnetic fields. It turns out the only other solid surface planet to have a field was mercury and it was small. So if that was the process earth would be the only planet would a currently working system even though, according to this theory, other planets show signs of expansion. So either the field comes from some other way (dynamo theory) or the other planets aren't currently expanding. So that is my explanation, the creation of matter. It is based on the supposed results of the effect observed from the state of the earth now. Of course the problem with this is it is missing anything supporting it in terms of how and by what means. So I guess as of now the expanding earth is scientifically wrong. We know of no way for matter being created inside the earth. That is the only, but huge, problem with the theory. I still want some explanation for the ridge going around antartica in this image[\URL] The age of the sea floor would show the movement of plates (for a static size earth) but how could the crust be created around antartica like that and then move inward and subduct under antartica. A larger perimeter getting pushed into a smaller perimeter.

Ok, I guess I a am just going to drop it. I don't feel the need to argue my point anymore. I still think that there are evidences that make it kinda hard to reject this idea. But I am done talking about it. One more think I want to say is why don't you try having an open mind and giving it a change. Look at it from an angle that though it can't be explained it could be happening. Give it a chance. There are a lot of stupid ideas relating to this theory but the basic idea of the earth expanding has some convincing evidences(Sea floor age, continents fitting on a globe 50% smaller, dinosaur size). I can tell I have probably frustrated you, I myself am pretty frustrated too. So if I have said anything in my frustration that offended you in anyway sorry. I don't really want to make anybody angry. If you want to discuss it further I will respond to maybe a few more posts but this debate is going in a downward spiral. In light of the original post and intention of this thread I will go ahead and ridicule it anyway, even though I think it may be possible. Ha ha, that guy should be a comedian. I can't believe he would believe such a thing.

... You really think proof of a theory can be based on animations. I've seen some pretty crappy animations of pangea. I'm not posting those. Ya I know there are all kinds of stupid things in his animations, like some of the continental crust coming out of the ocean. Alaska bending, he makes it look like rubber. And a few other things. I don't think the entire theory should be rejected because of it. Those little details are so small. Look at the evidence. The continents can be fit together on a smaller globe. When they broke apart they left 2 1/2 - 4 mile drop offs into the ocean off of the continental shelf. The sea floor age maps showing signs of spreading all over the globe, not just in the atantic. The only way for creation of new crust everywhere on the globe is the globe expanding. The larger size of the dinosaurs. Or maybe the continental crust is shrinking. That would explain everything! Except maybe the large size of the dinosaurs. Silly Neal Adams. He messed up the animations. Keep in mind that I am not just blindly accepting all of his thoerys. He has a video on his website talking about an alternate model for the adam. I am not buying that one. It has nothing to back it up. Oh, and a kinda funny thing for his website. On the bottom of the page, there is a link for the physics of grow. And when you click on it you get a 404 message. I thought that was kinda funny. Anyway, I took the evidence that he supplied and have concluded that an expanding earth makes more sense the plate tectonics. I think this theory has enough evidence to stand on it's own. So why don't you attack the theory and maybe why I keep coming to the wrong conclusion looking at the sea floor age data, and why the continents all fit together on a small globe, and why fossil evidence show a good change of a small planet.

Plate Tectonics True, plate tectonics explains how the oceanic crust is moving but still has nothing for continents or why they broke up in the first place. Plus I always have a hard time with those pictures showing a plate being subducted downward with something like a 70 degree angle into the sea floor. I don't think a huge slab of rock would bend like that. Sure it can't explain itself but the evidence please stop ignoring it and tell me why the evidence isn't correct. Why don't you try explaining why the sea floor age maps fit so well into the expanding earth theory. Here take a look at antartica in this image. Go ahead and explain to me how the ridge circling antartica creates ocean crust and subducts underneath antartica like that. There is obviosly a larger creation zone there then there could be subduction zones. At least admit there is a problem there, even if you can't come up with some bandage fix on the plate tectonic theory.

You are right, it is missing the means by which the earth is expanding. Plate tectonics is also missing a reason for the continents to be moving around. So because they both have that problem I throw that out for each of them and take a look at the remaining evidence. They both explain the age of the seabed in the Atlantic. They both explain how South America fits into Africa, though if you look at this it says that the fit isn't perfect unless the continents were put onto a globe 50% smaller. but Expanding earth explains the age of the sea floor in the pacific as well as any other spread happening in the ocean. Tectonics tries to explain it but the explanation doesn't seem to make sense to me. One problem I have with it is the ridge circling antarctica. Supposably the crust being created around that ridge subducts under antartica even though perimeter of the ridge is larger than the perimeter of antartica. Another problem I have with it is the atantic spread age pattern in the map was caused by the continents spreading and seamlessly the ridges travel all around the globe and yet other parts of the globe are supposed to be recycling the crust through subduction. I hope you can see the problems tectonics moving with that age map. Expanding earth explains why living things were so large millions of years ago. Tectonics doesn't explain anything like this at all. Expanding earth explains why other planets and moons show signs of expansion expanding Watch some of the videos If this weren't true wouldn't be a little odd how those planets, including earth, fit so well together. One thing I think is cool is the one for the moon. The spreading happens all on one side. That makes a lot of sense because the spreading happens on the earth side and the centripetal force from the orbit would pull the crust to the back like that as it expands. I personally think the expanding earth is a much simpler explanation for this. The earth just expanded. There is nothing else to it. Tectonics moving not only has the same problem as the expanding earth for lacking a cause for it happening but it also has problems needed to work out like the age of the sea floor being all in the same age range. Tectonics explains it by a constantly recycled floor and all this stuff about creation zones, and subduction zones. Also tectonics has no real reason how the continents formed in the first place with a 2 1/2 - 4 mile drop into the ocean off the continental shelfs. Earth expanding explains all of this very well and very simply. I think Occom's Razor favors Earth Expansion.

Sure, I'll agree. What you just said seems right. I believe that this guy has a lot of good arguments but a lot of them are stupid. Kinda like that one. I guess that does a pretty good job of making matter creation as a mechanism for expansion a tough one to go by. I would imagine that 5.4 x 10^35 joules would be kinda hard to come by and that number assumes that all of the energy would be converted into matter (if the conversion were even possible). You make some very good points. I still have a hard time seeing subduction explaining the destruction of all the sea floor created at the ridges. The shapes of the ridges worldwide seem to indicate more of an expansion than plates moving. I hope I'm not frustrating anybody, I know how frustrating it can be to be involved with some debates. It seems people just cover their ears and start yelling at each other. Oh and could I get some links to websites talking about subduction matching creation because I have heard different arguments for that but haven't actually seen any references for it.

Read through all of that, and I already knew it. I guess one thing I should mention is that when I first saw that theory I thought to myself. Huh? How could that possibly happen but the fact that all of the continents fit so well over the atlantic and pacific spread not to mention the sea floor age data made me want to investigate it further and I didn't only look at the pro-earth expansion I looked at why it wouldn't work as well as the same for subduction. I did my homework you don't need to give you your elementary level reading. http://www.continuitystudios.net/marsmov02.html Take a look at this video for mars. Not only does the animation manage to put the continents of mars back together. But he actually is using some scientifically accepted methods for assessing relative age. The craters. The older crust has more craters . The younger crust formed later by the planets expanding has less craters. There are other videos and they are all pretty good. That is a good question. The theory that best explains with the given evidence is the matter is being created inside the earth. Of course that cannot be explained with our current understanding of matter and it seems to break one of the basic laws of physics. But just in an attempt to wider your perspective a little. Why is the sun expanding? I know there are huge differences when it comes to composition of the cores and behavior but the idea of a large object in space expanding is not far fetched. Now I ask you, what causes the plate tectonics to move? From what I understand it started with centripetal force, that was rejected. Then gravity, rejected. Recently was convection currents, rejected because a portion of the mantle near to the crust was discovered to be solid. And now all that is explained is something like the ocean crust sliding into the continents because it is sloped that way. There still is no explanation for continental movement. http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html Ya, but an expanding earth can explain it better. Nowhere on that web page I first posted does it say anything about the earth being hollow. I would never believe such a dumb claim as that one. Like I said I have done my homework I have read many things about this theory and a lot theory's people come up with it is dumb. One good example is somebody trying to explain the increase in size because of cosmic dust collecting. That is just stupid. The amount of dust collected per year extended is hardly anything compared to the mass of the earth even extended millions of years in the past. I wouldn't believe something like that because it is easy to disprove with our knowledge and observations now. Exactly now I don't have to bring it up myself. Not knowing how the earth could expand maybe even somehow created matter does not mean it couldn't happen, thank you for bringing that up. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif Take a look at this image. The age of the pacific ocean is the same age as the atlantic. Subduction scientists explain this by saying that the crust being created at the ridges are being subducted at the continents. This would work if you could have a subduction zone for every creation zone but the age of the sea floor brings a few problems here. If you take a look at the piece of crust just west of south America it has a creation zone right above and below it and yet no subduction. Take a look at the age of the seabed and try to imagine the type of motion that would occur with the data from that map. The plates would have to be moving in the direction of their oldest sections but the plate west of South America would have to be moving up and down at the same time, doesn't work. Not the ridge in the pacific. Unless you want to explain the fact that the ridge running north to south to the west side of South America just happens to match up with the west coast of South America by chance. Already have. I have been looking information up for a while now. And the earth expanding seems to explain things a lot better then plate tectonics. Just one example is this. http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/utahgeo/dinofossil/falcarius/index.htm A certain group of dinosaurs has been found in both the western part of North America and China. I did go through the process of looking up information for both arguments. There are some statements made for it that are stupid, and some that aren't. From the information I find valid the earth expanding theory makes more sense even without having to explain how it is done because if all evidence points to an expanding earth then obviously it happened that way knowing or not knowing how makes no difference. The next step would be to start trying to figure out how the expansion would take place. I hope that you would think through something and decide what makes more sense before deciding to stick with one.

Any good examples as to why it doesn't work? Because the theory seems to explain pretty well why the Atlantic spread can be closed up and the shorelines meet up, the pacific spread can be closed. It can explain why the Moon, Mars, Ganymede, and Europa also have older plates that can be put back together it explains why the dinosaurs could grow to such an enormous size. All plate tectonics seems to explain out of all of that is the Atlantic spread. Another thing, at least try to explain why his arguments aren't valid. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/images/WorldCrustalAge.gif Take a look at that map. In the pacific ocean, why would the sea floor be the same age as the Atlantic? I've heard the argument before that the crust is being formed at the ridges and subducts under the continents. So even if that were the case take a look at the crust just west of south america. See the two horizontal cracks where the seafloor is being created. If the two creation zones are causing the sea floor to grow inward. Where is the subduction happening? http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/tectonics/quakemapbw.gif Where are all the earthquakes? Another quick think I want to point out. Doesn't that trench going down the west side of South America line up nicely with the west coast just like the Atlantic trench lines up with the east coast. Please tell me what I just said is wrong rather than just posting something about Benioff zones and why subduction is correct, because as far as I'm concerned, there is enough proof for me to believe that the earth is expanding and unless you can come up with some logical reason why that evidence doesn't work you aren't going to convince me otherwise.

The earth really is expanding as well as other planets and moons. http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html And before you try to argue it at least read it and maybe watch some of the videos, #2 and #10 are pretty cool. It is long but it defiantly states enough evidence on the page to support this theory and put down plate tectonics.