View Full Version : Conservation of Angular Momentum
Hello all, first off, I'm not here to fight beliefs, I want to discuss science.
So here we go...
The Conservation of Angular Momentum. I'd like to describe this with a very simple explanation.
Say you put some kids on a Merry-Go-Round and get it spinning extremely fast. The ride is spinning clockwise so fast that the kids fly off. For one, this is poor parenting. For two, the kids will spin clockwise in the air before they hit resistance. This will happen every time.
Let's back up a few years...
The Big Bang consists of every atom, every piece of matter in the Universe coming together into a space much smaller than the size of a period on your screen. Then, it began to spin, faster and faster, until it exploded and bam, here we are billions of years later.
According to the Conservation of Angular Momentum in physics, it would seem that every body of the Universe would spin in the same direction. But, coincidentally, compared to the Earth, two of the planets of our solar system spin the wrong way. 8 of our known 91 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have seperate moons that spin both directions. Even our galaxy spins the wrong way.
Of all things that should follow our Laws of Physics, our Universe should. And then again, it does not follow the Conservation of Angular Momentum in conjunction with the Big Bang Theory.
Also as a side note, both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are destroyed in our Universe. The first saying that "Matter cannot be made nor destroyed" and the second saying "Everything goes from order to disorder." Thus, makes me question Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.
Under these examples, using Science and Laws that can be observed and proven right now, the Big Bang Theory is an impossible answer to the creation of the Universe.
My beliefs...
I believe there is a God. The God who created our Universe in a literal six day creation just as the Bible States.
Thank you, I am up for discussion. NOT debate. :bow:
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 22:16
Well, the big bang theory is the best science have. It is not perfect, mind you.
Do you have a better theory?
You ended by saying you have a "belief"... That's cool and all that. However, it has nothing to do with science.
But if you want to have a scientific discussion, you can not go: "some parts of this theory might prove wrong, so I decide to go with pink elephants being the cause".
Get my point?
Oh, and there are scientific research to explain what you wrote, I however am not intelligent or well read enough to understand it.
But I urge you to do some research on the topic if it fascinates you! Please report your findings :yes:
Well, the big bang theory is the best science have. It is not perfect, mind you.
Do you have a better theory?
You ended by saying you have a "belief"... That's cool and all that. However, it has nothing to do with science.
But if you want to have a scientific discussion, you can not go: "some parts of this theory might prove wrong, so I decide to go with pink elephants being the cause".
Get my point?
Oh, and there are scientific research to explain what you wrote, I however am not intelligent or well read enough to understand it.
But I urge you to do some research on the topic if it fascinates you! Please report your findings :yes:
:yes: I agree, I should have been more clear with my ending.
But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in. They say nothing came out of nowhere and exploded, it rained on Earth for billions of years and somehow the rock came to life. You have to have faith in that theory because you werent there to know it happened without a shadow of a doubt.
Same for me. I believe and trust that God created this Earth. I see life and see purpose in it instead of it being an accident.
Belief has everything to do with Science. :wink:
Thank you, I am up for discussion. NOT debate. :bow:
What's the difference? :inquisitive:
Also as a side note, both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are destroyed in our Universe. The first saying that "Matter cannot be made nor destroyed" and the second saying "Everything goes from order to disorder." Thus, makes me question Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.
Under these examples, using Science and Laws that can be observed and proven right now, the Big Bang Theory is an impossible answer to the creation of the Universe.
In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
I don't believe the conservation of angular momentum applies, because the singularity was not spinning homogeneously, it was more just a highly dense mass at high temperature and pressure. Moons spinning in the "wrong" direction can be explained by the fact that moons are created by collisions of debris, thus they have already hit resistance and can spin any way they like.
And get the laws right. The first law is:
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
Einstein's E=mc^2 shows the relationship between energy and matter. Nuclear reactions destroy matter and turn it into energy, not sure where you got your text for law 1.
And the Big Bang is just a theory, being refined and tweaked as scientific observations and progressions are made. Not some book written/edited/translated by fallible humans with different agendas and points of view and now can no longer be questioned.
Either way, I foresee thread lockage before 60 posts. :yes:
What's the difference? :inquisitive:
In this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
I don't believe the conservation of angular momentum applies, because the singularity was not spinning homogeneously, it was more just a highly dense mass at high temperature and pressure. Moons spinning in the "wrong" direction can be explained by the fact that moons are created by collisions of debris, thus they have already hit resistance and can spin any way they like.
And get the laws right. The first law is:
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
Einstein's E=mc^2 shows the relationship between energy and matter. Nuclear reactions destroy matter and turn it into energy, not sure where you got your text for law 1.
And the Big Bang is just a theory, being refined and tweaked as scientific observations and progressions are made. Not some book written/edited/translated by fallible humans with different agendas and points of view and now can no longer be questioned.
Either way, I foresee thread lockage before 60 posts. :yes:
I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder? :smile:
I hope to keep this thread scientific. I don't want to attack or be attacked, nor do I want to convert or be converted. I want to learn in all respect.
Crazed Rabbit
10-14-2009, 22:32
Hmm. I believe in the Lord God and the big bang, I think they're very compatible. Course it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.
I think applying the conservation of angular momentum to the big bang theory doesn't fly. Where's your source that the singularity point was spinning in one direction? A quick skim of wiki doesn't say that.
Also; matter collided after the big bang, as the universe expanded. Such collisions would easily change the direction of the particles impacting, so that they didn't match the initial spin, if there was one. I'm not sure the basics of this criticism of the big bang theory really holds up.
I've listened to a couple very smart people make very pointed criticisms of the big bang theory, but they didn't mention this. Nor do I think it violates the laws of thermodynamics you mention. IIRC, according to the theory, matter isn't created; it is simply that all of the matter in the universe was in one point (wow!). Nor does the formation of planets violate the second law. The universe before the big bang was very ordered, in the way of matter not being spread out over vast empty areas. Okay, I'm not quite sure that's a good explanation for the second law, but I am sure the theory doesn't violate it.
CR
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-14-2009, 22:33
It seems to me that you have proposed an extremely dangerous philosophical model, that a theory or theoretical system can be rejected wholesale if one part of it can be shown to be not entirely correct.
Ergo, if your Bible contains a single error your entire belief system must be wrong.
This seems a very odd proposition, given the circumstances.
It seems to me that you have proposed an extremely dangerous philosophical model, that a theory or theoretical system can be rejected wholesale if one part of it can be shown to be not entirely correct.
Ergo, if your Bible contains a single error your entire belief system must be wrong.
This seems a very odd proposition, given the circumstances.
So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.
Hmm. I believe in the Lord God and the big bang, I think they're very compatible. Course it was a Catholic priest who first proposed the theory.
I think applying the conservation of angular momentum to the big bang theory doesn't fly. Where's your source that the singularity point was spinning in one direction? A quick skim of wiki doesn't say that.
Also; matter collided after the big bang, as the universe expanded. Such collisions would easily change the direction of the particles impacting, so that they didn't match the initial spin, if there was one. I'm not sure the basics of this criticism of the big bang theory really holds up.
I've listened to a couple very smart people make very pointed criticisms of the big bang theory, but they didn't mention this. Nor do I think it violates the laws of thermodynamics you mention. IIRC, according to the theory, matter isn't created; it is simply that all of the matter in the universe was in one point (wow!). Nor does the formation of planets violate the second law. The universe before the big bang was very ordered, in the way of matter not being spread out over vast empty areas. Okay, I'm not quite sure that's a good explanation for the second law, but I am sure the theory doesn't violate it.
CR
My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.
Tribesman
10-14-2009, 22:40
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
OK lets start with things spinning the wrong way
If an object that is not spinning hits an object that is spinning what are the results?
If a spinning object hits a spinning object what are the results?
If two objects pass in close proximity what are the results?
What are the results if they are spinning or not spinning?
If I push a door where does the linear momentum become angular momentum?
when could that angular momentum become no momentum ?
when could the direction of the angular momentum become completly reversed?
Go on give us a laugh, where did you cut and paste that from?
Though of course if you knew what you was talking about it might help.
So lets go back to little things, very little things say at the atomic level ,what plank found something about spinning small things that make up big things?
Or alternately.....
I believe there is a God. The God who created our Universe in a literal six day creation just as the Bible States.
...gives all that needs to be said.
we live on a flat earth under a bowl in which the lights are placed, after all if you want literal creationism like scripture says then you cannot argue against that "fact"
But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in.
start at lesson 1 in science.
So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.
Do you want that one Phillipvs or shall I ?
Can you start by giving us which version of the one true word you are using as "truth" and then specify how far back you want to go with the errors it contains.
My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing.
Ah, you don't understand the theory of evolution do you.
its quite common among creationists , especially young earth ones.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 22:43
I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder? :smile:
I hope to keep this thread scientific. I don't want to attack or be attacked, nor do I want to convert or be converted. I want to learn in all respect.
Well to be honest the second law is correct if our universe is isolated, however we cannot be certain of that but it does not give you the right to claim god is real if our universe is not isolated.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
OK lets start with things spinning the wrong way
If an object that is not spinning hits an object that is spinning what are the results?
If a spinning object hits a spinning object what are the results?
If two objects pass in close proximity what are the results?
What are the results if they are spinning or not spinning?
If I push a door where does the linear momentum become angular momentum?
when could that angular momentum become no momentum ?
when could the direction of the angular momentum become completly reversed?
Go on give us a laugh, where did you cut and paste that from?
Though of course if you knew what you was talking about it might help.
So lets go back to little things, very little things say at the atomic level ,what plank found something about spinning small things that make up big things?
Or alternately.....
...gives all that needs to be said.
we live on a flat earth under a bowl in which the lights are placed, after all if you want literal cretinism like scripture says then you cannot argue against that "fact"
You do not support your theories but only attack mine and my arguments. Thus, you have no room in this thread.
Thank you.
I see you have read up on these things. What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics having to do with order to disorder? :smile:
Second law:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.
I didn't address this, because I fail to see how it comes into the argument. If the Universe as a whole is an isolated thermodynamic system, we are headed eventually towards heat death. It's going to take a long time though.
But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in. They say nothing came out of nowhere and exploded, it rained on Earth for billions of years and somehow the rock came to life. You have to have faith in that theory because you werent there to know it happened without a shadow of a doubt.
"Belief" should never be in science. Everything should be questioned until proven, and even then taken with a grain of salt. The Big Bang and Evolution do not have to be believed in in science. These are theories put forth, to be reviewed and poked at. For the most part, they hold up to a degree, but there are still problems. The number of theories submitted and then found to be junk are countless. Mankind has a long way to go before understanding how this world, or the universe as a whole, operates. Science is about expanding knowledge, not restricting it to 39+27 chapters in some book put together by a committee.
I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous. ~;)
Well to be honest the second law is correct if our universe is isolated, however we cannot be certain of that but it does not give you the right to claim god is real if our universe is not isolated.
I have the right to say God is real because the Universe exists.
Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 22:46
Zain, no. Just no.
Science does NOT require faith. I say it again to make sure you get this: Science does NOT require faith.
We have scientifical examples, we have theorys, we have a lot of cool stuff. Faith, however, is not among them.
That is why science is never claiming to be 100% correct. Science is just saying "this is the way we think things works from the scientifical results we have at this time".
You seem to have got the very basics of science fundamentaly wrong.
That is the difference between science and religion, science dont claim to know the truth of things. Science strives to LEARN the truth though, and get better at it every minute.
But no, you will not in your lifetime have science proving any religion, or madman, wrong.
That is the wonder of this world! If some lunatic wants to believe that the planets spin the way they do because pink elephants stampeted by, then they are free to believe so! Science can not, actually, prove these lunatics are wrong.
Sure, if someone claims this I might consider him a lunatic from what I have seen of the world, but I can not prove him wrong.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 22:48
I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous. ~;)
:laugh4:
Second law:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.
I didn't address this, because I fail to see how it comes into the argument. If the Universe as a whole is an isolated thermodynamic system, we are headed eventually towards heat death. It's going to take a long time though.
"Belief" should never be in science. Everything should be questioned until proven, and even then taken with a grain of salt. The Big Bang and Evolution do not have to be believed in in science. These are theories put forth, to be reviewed and poked at. For the most part, they hold up to a degree, but there are still problems. The number of theories submitted and then found to be junk are countless. Mankind has a long way to go before understanding how this world, or the universe as a whole, operates. Science is about expanding knowledge, not restricting it to 39+27 chapters in some book put together by a committee.
I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous. ~;)
Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Thus, we are headings towards death. I agree. But how does increased entropy create life?
Also, you must believe in something to care to argue about it. Plus Something from Nothing seems very religious to me.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 22:50
I have the right to say God is real because the Universe exists.
Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.
I have the right to say pink elephants is real because the Universe exists.
Thats the bottom line for me. I see Earth and say miracle.
Crazed Rabbit
10-14-2009, 22:51
My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.
I do not believe the two theories are related in that way. We can still have evolution and be on our way to the heat death of the universe.
CR
Zain, no. Just no.
Science does NOT require faith. I say it again to make sure you get this: Science does NOT require faith.
We have scientifical examples, we have theorys, we have a lot of cool stuff. Faith, however, is not among them.
That is why science is never claiming to be 100% correct. Science is just saying "this is the way we think things works from the scientifical results we have at this time".
You seem to have got the very basics of science fundamentaly wrong.
That is the difference between science and religion, science dont claim to know the truth of things. Science strives to LEARN the truth though, and get better at it every minute.
But no, you will not in your lifetime have science proving any religion, or madman, wrong.
That is the wonder of this world! If some lunatic wants to believe that the planets spin the way they do because pink elephants stampeted by, then they are free to believe so! Science can not, actually, prove these lunatics are wrong.
Sure, if someone claims this I might consider him a lunatic from what I have seen of the world, but I can not prove him wrong.
If you believe that Big Bang and Evolution as truth, then you must have faith. Like I've said. Life from a rock seems like a fairy tale. Of course I can see how religion would seem that way too. At least my "fairy tale" has an author.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-14-2009, 22:57
So you propose there are errors in my bible? Please inform me so I can research that.
I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.
Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.
Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the first diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.
To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.
So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.
I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe. To begin with, there will be errors in the translation you are reading, as can be proved by the multiple conflicting versions in every language. Secondly, there are scribal errors, as demonstrated by the multiple readings in every book, then there are potential errors of selection when Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome decided what books were going to be included and what not, that was around 400 AD.
Now, there are also the manifest errors of fact, both in the Old Testemant and the Gospels, conflicting dates, incorrect geography and divergances of narrative that cannot be explained by differing perspectives.
Consider, for example, the difference in the calling of the fist diciples between Mathew 4.18-22 and John 1.35-50.
To point up just one difference, in Mathew Peter is a fisherman, in John he is a diciple of John the Baptist.
So, according to your philosophy Christianity is just nonsense.
I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.
I will do some research :bow:
I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?
Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Thus, we are headings towards death. I agree. But how does increased entropy create life?
Also, you must believe in something to care to argue about it. Plus Something from Nothing seems very religious to me.
Entropy does not create life from nothing, I don't believe the theory of Evolution ever tried to state that. In most life creation theories, life begins as chemical reactions. Various elements and molecules interact, given enough variety they form proteins, etc, and eventually single-celled replicating organisms.
Entropy does not create life from nothing, I don't believe the theory of Evolution ever tried to state that. In most life creation theories, life begins as chemical reactions. Various elements and molecules interact, given enough variety they form proteins, etc, and eventually single-celled replicating organisms.
And where did those gases come from drone?
Centurion1
10-14-2009, 23:04
i really dont even feel like posting in here after tribesmen has feels like wasted time........
And this topic had potential.....
Well who said the universe before the big bang WASNT ordered. Very possible it was very ordered and then the radius of the "blast" knocked everything silly. They say before the big bang the universe was a much closer tighter knit thing. so in my mind the second law could very well be fulfilled. All this is hypothetical and based on some assumptions.
i really dont even feel like posting in here after tribesmen has feels like wasted time........
And this topic had potential.....
Well who said the universe before the big bang WASNT ordered. Very possible it was very ordered and then the radius of the "blast" knocked everything silly. They say before the big bang the universe was a much closer tighter knit thing. so in my mind the second law could very well be fulfilled. All this is hypothetical and based on some assumptions.
I suppose all of mine has been based on my own assumptions as well. It seems if what you say is true, we went from order to disorder and then are going back to order according to Evolution.
Kadagar_AV
10-14-2009, 23:06
If you believe that Big Bang and Evolution as truth, then you must have faith. Like I've said. Life from a rock seems like a fairy tale. Of course I can see how religion would seem that way too. At least my "fairy tale" has an author.
Hmm... I thought I could not make myself more clear, but obviosly I have to.
Zain, AGAIN, you do NOT understand even the basics of science.
I do NOT, again and again and again: NOT NOT NOT "believe" that big bang and evolution is "true". I do however consider them the theorys that, as of this date, explains the universe to the best of our abilities.
Are you able to understand what I am saying?
So no, obviosly I must not have "faith". If these theorys are changed tomorrow and replaced with better theorys I wouldn't be bothered. It would not, so to say, disturb my circles.
And about your "fairy tale" as you call it... Does it matter if it has an author or not? If that is the only claim to "truth", you might aswell worship Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.
Tribesman
10-14-2009, 23:08
You do not support your theories but only attack mine and my arguments.
Are you unable to defend your theories from simple questions.
Or is it simply that you cut and pasted an article and don't actually understand the theories you are putting forward yourself.
you have no room in this thread.
Thats debateable , though it could seem that someone who knows very little of science and very very little of scripture really doesn't belong in this topic.
You do know that gluttony is a sin and being a glutton for punishment upsets god.
This defiance of the order of reason is unchristian, John of the cross speaks clearly against spiritual gluttony you indulge in.
OK philipvs , you can take Zain for his much needed lessons on scripture, I really can't be bothered.
Hmm... I thought I could not make myself more clear, but obviosly I have to.
Zain, AGAIN, you do NOT understand even the basics of science.
I do NOT, again and again and again: NOT NOT NOT "believe" that big bang and evolution is "true". I do however consider them the theorys that, as of this date, explains the universe to the best of our abilities.
Are you able to understand what I am saying?
So no, obviosly I must not have "faith". If these theorys are changed tomorrow and replaced with better theorys I wouldn't be bothered. It would not, so to say, disturb my circles.
And about your "fairy tale" as you call it... Does it matter if it has an author or not? If that is the only claim to "truth", you might aswell worship Douglas Adams and the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy.
Can you see, feel, touch, smell, or taste the Big Bang Theory?
Then you must believe in it.
Are you unable to defend your theories from simple questions.
Or is it simply that you cut and pasted an article and don't actually understand the theories you are putting forward yourself.
Thats debateable , though it could seem that someone who knows very little of science and very very little of scripture really doesn't belong in this topic.
You do know that gluttony is a sin and being a glutton for punishment upsets god.
This defiance of the order of reason is unchristian, John of the cross speaks clearly against spiritual gluttony you indulge in.
OK philipvs , you can take Zain for his much needed lessons on scripture, I really can't be bothered.
I wrote that entire first post Tribesman.
And yet you still bash me. Thinking my discussion as self punishment. I want to learn and speak to others of their beliefs and observations.
If this thread gets closed because of you I will be terribly disappointed.
Centurion1
10-14-2009, 23:11
I suppose all of mine has been based on my own assumptions as well. It seems if what you say is true, we went from order to disorder and then are going back to order according to Evolution.
perhaps and then maybe the big bang will repeat itself. Or maybe a giant pink hippo race will eat my brain and destroy everything we hold dear, it is all assumption at some point.
Kadagar
many scientists have faith. To be able to support an idea you must believe in it somewhat. if an experiment fails you must have some faith to re-do it.
And where did those gases come from drone?
Gases are elements. I think the proposal is that the elements were formed from the energy to matter conversion (E=mc^2 works both ways) of the big bang. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter.
I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?
Unless your belief structure is wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemns you to the hell of the extra-spicy marinara for your heresy. :smash:
Since you obviously aren't going to be swayed (I half suspect this whole thread to be a thinly disguised troll), let me ask this question: Why do you think that just because you believe the way you do leads you to paradise and not someone that believes differently? Should a believer that acts in contempt of his fellow man deserve heaven over an unenlightened schmuck that actually helps people?
Centurion1
10-14-2009, 23:17
^ he never said that we would burn in hell for it merely that he disagreed. Zain obviously harbors no malice towards us drone, he seems like he really wants to understand.
tribes that "article" is not in accepted scientific format. h obviously wrote it himself. as drone has pointed out there are mistakes in the post.
asking questions is fine but why cant he ask you one back?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I dont agree with him but i am going to respect his beliefs as long as he respects mine. you are not allowing for either option to occur.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:19
Zeroth Law If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First Law The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system.
Second Law The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.
Third Law As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes".
Brownian motion first proof of Atoms (http://www.vias.org/physics/bk4_02_04_04.html)
299,792,458 m/s speed of light
Facts
Belief God created man
Life did not come from nothing the very fact we have a universe to exist in gave evolution a vast amount of time to evolve a being that could live in said universe.
By the way evolution is not a consious thing like a god its a process.
Proved by the mistakes evolution makes along the way otherwise no animal would ever go extinct and no part of us we evolve would ever be faulty if a designer made us.
Go check out whale and giraffe biology you can see the many problems and vestigial elements both of these mammals have.
Gases are elements. I think the proposal is that the elements were formed from the energy to matter conversion (E=mc^2 works both ways) of the big bang. Matter becomes energy, energy becomes matter.
Unless your belief structure is wrong, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemns you to the hell of the extra-spicy marinara for your heresy. :smash:
Since you obviously aren't going to be swayed (I half suspect this whole thread to be a thinly disguised troll), let me ask this question: Why do you think that just because you believe the way you do leads you to paradise and not someone that believes differently? Should a believer that acts in contempt of his fellow man deserve heaven over an unenlightened schmuck that actually helps people?
Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?
And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)
The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.
And that somewhere is to God.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-14-2009, 23:20
I honestly am not read up enough to be able to contradict you. Which is why I wanted to have this thread.
I will do some research :bow:
I would like to ask though. If I'm wrong, nothing happens. If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not. Do you accept this risk?
You are operating under a missaprehension based on the belief that understanding the origin of the scriptures automatically makes one an atheist. Most Theologians are religious, and they will happily tell you everything I just did.
After all, why would you have faith in an anthology compiled by blind scribes and priests of unknown virtue when you could just have faith in God?
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:22
Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?
And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)
The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.
And that somewhere is to God.
Oldest rocks Four Billion Years Old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_rock)
Tribesman
10-14-2009, 23:24
I want to learn and speak to others of their beliefs and observations.
Thats fine.
So when you write
So you propose there are errors in my bible?
it raises the real question of you having any real knowledge at all of the books which you claim are the truth and which you are basing your arguements on.
Combining that lack of knowledge of scripture with a seeming lack of knowledge about the basics of the sciences you wish to dispute does not make for a good proposal for wanting to learn especially when you start off by claiming you already know the truth of the issue as it is in a book which you demonstrate you don't understand.
Zeroth Law If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First Law The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system.
Second Law The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value.
Third Law As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is zero at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes".
Brownian motion first proof of Atoms (http://www.vias.org/physics/bk4_02_04_04.html)
299,792,458 m/s speed of light
Facts
Belief God created man
Life did not come from nothing the very fact we have a universe to exist in gave evolution a vast amount of time to evolve a being that could live in said universe.
By the way evolution is not a consious thing like a god its a process.
Proved by the mistakes evolution makes along the way otherwise no animal would ever go extinct and no part of us we evolve would ever be faulty if a designer made us.
Go check out whale and giraffe biology you can see the many problems and vestigial elements both of these mammals have.
Are you a believer? If you are, then believing in Evolution is a contradiction because death before sin by Adam never happened.
If you're not, then I respect your opinion. Although if a designer made a perfect being there would be no need for faith because we would be our own God. We wouldn't need him if we were perfect.
Thats fine.
So when you write
it raises the real question of you having any real knowledge at all of the books which you claim are the truth and which you are basing your arguements on.
Combining that lack of knowledge of scripture with a seeming lack of knowledge about the basics of the sciences you wish to dispute does not make for a good proposal for wanting to learn especially when you start off by claiming you already know the truth of the issue as it is in a book which you demonstrate you don't understand.
I never based this argument off of any books.
I based it off of laws of science and mere observations.
I understand my bible fine. I'm not a scholar though, and never claimed to be.
Pannonian
10-14-2009, 23:29
I do not propose, I know. I've read it, and it most certainly was not dictated by God direct to the hands of the scribe.
Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:29
Are you a believer? If you are, then believing in Evolution is a contradiction because death before sin by Adam never happened.
If you're not, then I respect your opinion. Although if a designer made a perfect being there would be no need for faith because we would be our own God. We wouldn't need him if we were perfect.
I have read the entire bible several times and there is no mention that evolution is wrong in it ever. There is no mention that to believe in evolution will dam me to hell.
The bible states nowhere that it requires you to believe god created the universe it only states you must believe in god and not to believe in other gods like Thor or Bhaal.
^ he never said that we would burn in hell for it merely that he disagreed. Zain obviously harbors no malice towards us drone, he seems like he really wants to understand.
Then what is this supposed to mean?
If I'm right, I'm doing great and you are not.
No malice, I agree, but that viewpoint is very dangerous.
He has every right to his own beliefs. But if he is going to use religious belief on it's own to attack the scientific method, he opens himself up to the deluge. Science is not about belief, as much as he tries to state it.
Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?No idea, I'm not read up on the Big Bang to remember that one. IANAP.
And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)
I know your location says Texas and all, but now it's obvious this is a troll thread. Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]
I'll let [B]PVC ruin your perception of the perfect Bible, he knows way more about it than I. Out b4 teh lock...
Meneldil
10-14-2009, 23:29
Okay, but where did the matter and the energy come from in the beginning?
And I believe in my bible and my God because of the evidence on Earth (Oldest tree 4,300 years old. Largest Reef 4,200 years old. Petrafied trees standing between rock layers. Comets. Biblical aging of the earth being 2,300 years from Adam to Jesus plus 2000 years since then.)
The evidence lines up. If someone else believes in a God but does not see the evidence to back it then the evidence he does see should point him somewhere.
And that somewhere is to God.
Wow, that's kind of scarry.
The way some human beings create their own alternate reality to support their beliefs against all odds is both amazing and terryfying.
If I were bothered to write a thesis, that would be my topic.
Weren't the gospels originally written in English? Sure, there may have been errors introduced when it was translated into Greek, since Greek misses many of the nuances of the English language, but we can always refer back to the original King James version.
The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word of God and do not entirely trust the other translations.
I have read the entire bible several times and there is no mention that evolution is wrong in it ever. There is no mention that to believe in evolution will dam me to hell.
The bible states nowhere that it requires you to believe god created the universe it only states you must believe in god and not to believe in other gods like Thor or Bhaal.
He also says believe in his word and in his word Genesis 1 describes everything.
The King James was translated from the original Hebrew.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Then what is this supposed to mean?
No malice, I agree, but that viewpoint is very dangerous.
He has every right to his own beliefs. But if he is going to use religious belief on it's own to attack the scientific method, he opens himself up to the deluge. Science is not about belief, as much as he tries to state it.
No idea, I'm not read up on the Big Bang to remember that one. IANAP.
I know your location says Texas and all, but now it's obvious this is a troll thread. Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]
I'll let [B]PVC ruin your perception of the perfect Bible, he knows way more about it than I. Out b4 teh lock...
So when it comes down to it, the answer you don't know, you don't want to question. There are answers and to me its a very important question.
Wow, that's kind of scarry.
The way some human beings create their own alternate reality to support their beliefs against all odds is both amazing and terryfying.
If I were bothered to write a thesis, that would be my topic.
Please explain further instead of bashing my words. What do you believe?
Tribesman
10-14-2009, 23:34
tribes that "article" is not in accepted scientific format. h obviously wrote it himself. as drone has pointed out there are mistakes in the post.
That could be said of just about any "scientific" paper published by hovinds or many 'creation scientists.'
That could be said of just about any "scientific" paper published by hovinds or many 'creation scientists.'
That can be said about any paper written by anybody. Even Darwin who's probably loving the attention his THEORY is getting.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:37
He also says believe in his word and in his word Genesis 1 describes everything.
Show me the verse were god said evolution is wrong and I dam you too hell for believing otherwise.
Gods laws are by his own words according to the bible in the Ten Commandments nowhere in the ten commandments am I asked to believe in Genesis.
In fact apart from the first commandment the other nine are perfectly acceptable to non believers.
Therefore am I dammed more than someone who fought in a war and killed someone even though they believed.
Anyway I am straying from the point here were talking about dynamics.
So when it comes down to it, the answer you don't know, you don't want to question. There are answers and to me its a very important question.
I don't know, and nobody else knows either. But I do question. Did I ever say I trusted the big bang theory? Several times in this thread I have stated there are problems with it. It's a theory, not fact.
Edit->Mods must be asleep, this might get to 60. :thumbsup:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-14-2009, 23:39
The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word God and do not entirely trust the other translations.
Well, that's not actually true, because many of the copy-texts they worked from were translations from Greek, not originals. No Hebrew or Aramaic originals exist for any of the books of the New Testemant either.
The King James translation suffers from bad copy-texts (we have much better ones now that were discovered in the last 100 years or so), it also suffers from bad methodology because it's a post-Medieval Humanistic work.
Also, it contradicts itself, so it CANNOT be the word of God, God never contradicts himself. Why haven't you checked the verses I cited yet, anyway?
Show me the verse were god said evolution is wrong and I dam you too hell for believing otherwise.
Gods laws are by his own words according to the bible in the Ten Commandments nowhere in the ten commandments am I asked to believe in Genesis.
In fact apart from the first commandment the other nine are perfectly acceptable to non believers.
Therefore am I dammed more than someone who fought in a war and killed someone even though they believed.
Anyway I am straying from the point here were talking about dynamics.
It does say that, when it says Adam brought death and sin into the world in the book of Romans. Evolution had millions of years of death so therefore the bible and Evolution conflict.
Back to subject, Where did the universe come from and how does it not break the first law of thermodynamics?
I don't know, and nobody else knows either. But I do question. Did I ever say I trusted the big bang theory? Several times in this thread I have stated there are problems with it. It's a theory, not fact.
Edit->Mods must be asleep, this might get to 60. :thumbsup:
Haha, I hope it doesnt get closed! :wall:
I believe that God made it. Its my answer. My "theory" answers that question. Cool huh? :smile:
Well, that's not actually true, because many of the copy-texts they worked from were translations from Greek, not originals. No Hebrew or Aramaic originals exist for any of the books of the New Testemant either.
The King James translation suffers from bad copy-texts (we have much better ones now that were discovered in the last 100 years or so), it also suffers from bad methodology because it's a post-Medieval Humanistic work.
Also, it contradicts itself, so it CANNOT be the word of God, God never contradicts himself. Why haven't you checked the verses I cited yet, anyway?
Quite possibly John was a fisherman before or after he was a disciple of John the baptist? I haven't checked because I have been busy here on this thread.
The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?
Tribesman
10-14-2009, 23:43
The King James was translated from the original Hebrew.
OMG:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I really don't believe it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How on earth could anyone?????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
bloody hell :dizzy2:
OK I have to leave this topic.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
creationists:dizzy2:
OMG:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I really don't believe it :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How on earth could anyone?????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
bloody hell :dizzy2:
OK I have to leave this topic.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
creationists:dizzy2:
Then please leave if you do not wish to lend information instead of scrutinize.
Back to subject, Where did the universe come from and how does it not break the first law of thermodynamics?
From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.
The Big Bang theory therefore does not care where the initial matter/energy came from, and therefore fits with the 1st law.
I believe that God made it. Its my answer. My "theory" answers that question. Cool huh?
With this response, trollness confirmed. Enjoy life, I have dogs to exercise.
Aemilius Paulus
10-14-2009, 23:48
Sorry, I cannot resist either... :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I am however surprised anyone even bothered to debate on this thread. I am posting now, but you will not see me debate. This is the very definition of futility. Religious is the antipodal anathema of science, as Dawkins put it, no matter what they say. Things are best for everyone when the religious people do their thing and the science people do their. No point in converting the former, and the latter will only convert after going through a major period of insecurity and doubt, causing them to seek shelter in the comforting, yet utterly smothering embrace of the church.
From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
The Big Bang theory therefore does not care where the initial matter/energy came from, and therefore fits with the 1st law.
With this response, trollness confirmed. Enjoy life, I have dogs to exercise.
I don't understand "Trollness" but if you want to go be outside then go for it :smile:
The theory does not care because it's incomplete. How sad that it's become such an epidemic as the "Creation of the Universe"
Sorry, I cannot resist either... :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I am however surprised anyone even bothered to debate on this thread. I am posting now, but you will not see me debate. This is the very definition of futility. Religious is the antipodal anathema of science, as Dawkins put it, no matter what they say.
And I believe that Science is something I should be able to test and observe. Big Bang is not science.
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:52
It does say that, when it says Adam brought death and sin into the world in the book of Romans. Evolution had millions of years of death so therefore the bible and Evolution conflict.
Back to subject, Where did the universe come from and how does it not break the first law of thermodynamics?
True but there is no proof that the Adam is not some microbe in a pond billions of years ago, and there is still no proof Adam was made of mud in the middle east somewhere.
We cannot postulate on where the universe "CAME" from because we live in this one it is impossible to know according to current theory.
I myself have already stated in the science forum in the Frontroom I have problems with the big bang but I do not have any problem with pretty much how the universe ordered itself after this moment.
You state how does it not break the First Law
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
A big bang would create massive energy thus the order of the system would be massively disordered this possibly caused expansion I cannot be sure I am not a Quantum Physicist.
True but there is no proof that the Adam is not some microbe in a pond billions of years ago, and there is still no proof Adam was made of mud in the middle east somewhere.
We cannot postulate on where the universe "CAME" from because we live in this one it is impossible to know according to current theory.
I myself have already stated in the science forum in the Frontroom I have problems with the big bang but I do not have any problem with pretty much how the universe ordered itself after this moment.
You state how does it not break the First Law
The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
A big bang would create massive energy thus the order of the system would be massively disordered this possibly caused expansion I cannot be sure I am not a Quantum Physicist.
I have my problems with it too hence why I do not see it is a viable theory for the question I have.
The answer I see makes more sense and answers all the questions. :smile:
I hate unanswered questions.
Crazed Rabbit
10-14-2009, 23:55
And I believe that Science is something I should be able to test and observe. Big Bang is not science.
I'm sorry, but that isn't correct. It is science.
CR
I'm sorry, but that isn't correct. It is science.
CR
How can I test to see if the Big Bang is true? I would definitely enjoy some incite from you CR :smile:
gaelic cowboy
10-14-2009, 23:59
I have my problems with it too hence why I do not see it is a viable theory for the question I have.
The answer I see makes more sense and answers all the questions. :smile:
I hate unanswered questions.
Do you ever fear then that it should be Bhaal or Thor or possibly Dagda you should really be believing what if Crom Cruach is the one true god are we all doomed?????
Centurion1
10-14-2009, 23:59
This thread demonstrates as AP said the futility. Especially the futility of the backroom. i have never ever seen anyone change their mind on an issue. We mare all arguing for the sake of arguing. We should form a debate team we wouldd be unstoppable. And whenever we falter we will throw tribes in to shout bollocks until we think of something
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 00:00
Quite possibly John was a fisherman before or after he was a disciple of John the baptist? I haven't checked because I have been busy here on this thread.
No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.
The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?
The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.
As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.
As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".
You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.
Do you ever fear then that it should be Bhaal or Thor or possibly Dagda you should really be believing what if Crom Cruach is the one true god are we all doomed?????
I do not see the evidence of Thor or Bhaal. Everything is explained in God's word. I feel that he has control of my life and has transformed my life. It's a faith thing as well but I gladly accept that for the love I feel.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:01
This thread demonstrates as AP said the futility. Especially the futility of the backroom. i have never ever seen anyone change their mind on an issue. We mare all arguing for the sake of arguing. We should form a debate team we wouldd be unstoppable. And whenever we falter we will throw tribes in to shout bollocks until we think of something
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
yes it is futile but for a while we were trying to explain how the universe was in line with the laws of Thermo.
Meneldil
10-15-2009, 00:01
Please explain further instead of bashing my words. What do you believe?
I do not believe in anything and try to question everything, as far as my limited mind allows me to.
I certainly do not believe that there's no evidence that Earth is older than ~4300 (as I think that's what you said).
But then, if you reject things such as Radiocarbon dating, there's no much point discussing, right?
Here's the difference between you and I:
- Your beliefs are based on the litteral interpretation of a book written centuries ago, translated in hundreds of languages. They are set in the stone, and no matter how many people prove you wrong, how many evidences are thrown at you, you will never ever admit to be wrong.
Because your whole life and identity is based on your - very own and apparently not really knowledgeable - interpretation of the Bible. Admitting that it might be wrong would shatter everything you've ever thought. That's why you create your own little world, refuse to see facts, and keep claiming that you know, because you believe. This is also why you claimed the Founding Fathers were a bunch of christian believers who created a christian theocracy: because it supports your beliefs. The others are wrong, because they're betraying the Founding Fathers/not reading the Bible. I'm right, because I believe, because I know.
- My "beliefs" are based on the knowledge made available to the human kind, through all kind of sciences. I accept the theory of evolution because so far, it's the most conclusive scientific explanation. If someone discovers a new theory, or proves that the theory of evolution is in fact wrong, I'll be willing to re-evaluate my "beliefs" according to the new informations available. Sure, it would be quite an important event, but all my life isn't based around the theory of evolution like yours is based around the Bible. My whole world won't be shattered by such a discovery.
My identity doesn't require me to believe in evolution, big bang or anything else. I accept those theories because so far, we haven't found anything else to explain things. I honestly thinks the whole Big Bang idea seems a bit too much "human" (by implying that there's a beginning) for my tastes, but it's the only explanation we have at the moment, and as such, it will be true until proven wrong.
No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.
The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?[/QUOTE]
The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.
As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.
As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".
You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.[/QUOTE]
You trash my bible, I understand and do not judge you. But i'd to know, what do you believe and how did you come about believing it as truth? Was it a book? Or your own mind? Or someone elses mind? My following puts myself under a God. Atheism says "I am my own God. I decide right from wrong."
Do you think you know everything? Maybe half of everything? Let's say you know half of everything there is to know. Do you think my God could be in the other half you don't know?
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:06
I do not see the evidence of Thor or Bhaal. Everything is explained in God's word. I feel that he has control of my life and has transformed my life. It's a faith thing as well but I gladly accept that for the love I feel.
So where is the evidence of Yahweh.
If Dagda is not real prove that the grave at Newgrange (http://www.newgrange.com/) is not proof the ancient celtic gods are the one true gods you cant.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 00:07
I do not see the evidence of Thor or Bhaal. Everything is explained in God's word. I feel that he has control of my life and has transformed my life. It's a faith thing as well but I gladly accept that for the love I feel.
We don't have any of his words though, unless you've been talking to him yourself.
I do not believe in anything and try to question everything, as far as my limited mind allows me to.
I certainly do not believe that there's no evidence that Earth is older than ~4300 (as I think that's what you said).
But then, if you reject things such as Radiocarbon dating, there's no much point discussing, right?
Here's the difference between you and I:
- Your beliefs are based on the litteral interpretation of a book written centuries ago, translated in hundreds of languages. They are set in the stone, and no matter how many people prove you wrong, how many evidences are thrown at you, you will never ever admit to be wrong.
Because your whole life and identity is based on your - very own and apparently not really knowledgeable - interpretation of the Bible. Admitting that it might be wrong would shatter everything you've ever thought. That's why you create your own little world, refuse to see facts, and keep claiming that you know, because you believe. This is also why you claimed the Founding Fathers were a bunch of christian believers who created a christian theocracy: because it supports your beliefs. The others are wrong, because they're betraying the Founding Fathers/not reading the Bible. I'm right, because I believe, because I know.
- My "beliefs" are based on the knowledge made available to the human kind, through all kind of sciences. I accept the theory of evolution because so far, it's the most conclusive scientific explanation. If someone discovers a new theory, or proves that the theory of evolution is in fact wrong, I'll be willing to re-evaluate my "beliefs" according to the new informations available. Sure, it would be quite an important event, but all my life isn't based around the theory of evolution like yours is based around the Bible. My whole world won't be shattered by such a discovery.
My identity doesn't require me to believe in evolution, big bang or anything else. I accept those theories because so far, we haven't found anything else to explain things. I honestly thinks the whole Big Bang idea seems a bit too much "human" (by implying that there's a beginning) for my tastes, but it's the only explanation we have at the moment, and as such, it will be true until proven wrong.
This is where I have to say Wow. I can't believe in a creator. But you can believe in Man. Sounds fair... :inquisitive:
So where is the evidence of Yahweh.
If Dagda is not real prove that the grave at Newgrange (http://www.newgrange.com/) is not proof the ancient celtic gods are the one true gods you cant.
He rose from the dead. Dagda is still dead. Yahweh isn't in that grave anymore. Unlike Dagda.
We don't have any of his words though, unless you've been talking to him yourself.
It's called prayer. I do talk to him and I feel him. You might think I'm crazy, but you can't understand it unless you experience it.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:11
I asked for proof not belief Trollness confirmed beyond all doubt as has already been stated if you want we can go back to proving the laws of Thermo in our universe otherwise i think i will just start looking at some porn on Redtube
Aemilius Paulus
10-15-2009, 00:13
And I believe that Science is something I should be able to test and observe. Big Bang is not science.
You are partially correct. We cannot observe our creation. But you know nothing of Big Bang, and neither do I. Neither does anyone here for that matter. Big Bang is far too complex for us to understand. It is not as simple as "you get everything out of nothing". However, simply because something is too complicated for you, too difficult to understand does not mean you should go to the simple, elegant, reassuring fairy tales of religion.
Honestly, the Biblical creation is not much different from all the other creation myths in the world. Yet Christians scoff and utterly disrespect the beliefs of say, those African villagers for believing in the same material, albeit minor aesthetic changes. How one can believe in such primal, obscenely improbable and simplistic tales of literal Christian creation is beyond my understanding...
Here is a site you would love, Zain - http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Pretty impressive I say, despite it shamelessly making mockery of science and rampant with anti-intellectualist remarks... I mean, really, the anti-intellectualist snipes they make are so obvious and false that most sixth graders could explain why they are incorrect. Their favourite method of argumentation is "if the scientists are so smart, how come ..." or other equally infantile, primary-school type arguments. Ugh. There is no appeals to logic or real attempt
Whenever I need to get angry I simply browse their collection of absurd and preposterous cartoons (http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons), the multitude of which suggests the primary method of transfer of information from the site to its readers...
I asked for proof not belief Trollness confirmed beyond all doubt as has already been stated if you want we can go back to proving the laws of Thermo in our universe otherwise i think i will just start looking at some porn on Redtube
I believe I proved it when I said the universe should go from order to disorder. It seems evolution back the opposite theory. What are your thoughts on this?
You are partially correct. We cannot observe our creation. But you know nothing of Big Bang, and neither do I. Neither does anyone here for that matter. Big Bang is far too complex for us to understand. It is not as simple as "you get everything out of nothing". However, simply because somethign is too complicated for you, too difficult to understand does not mean you should go to the simple, elegant, reassuring fairy tales of religion.
Honestly, the Biblical creation is not much different from all the other creation myths in the world. Yet Christians scoff and utterly disrespect the beliefs of say, those African villagers for believing in the same material, albeit minor aesthetic changes. How one can believe in such primal, obscenely improbable and simplistic tales of literal Christian creation is beyond my understanding...
Here is a site you would love, Zain - http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Pretty impressive I say, despite it shamelessly making mockery of science and rampant with anti-intellectualist remarks... I mean, really, the anti-intellectualist snipes they make are so obvious and false that most sixth graders could explain why they are incorrect. Their favourite method of argumentation is "if the scientists are so smart, how come ..." or other equally infantile, primary-school type arguments. Ugh. There is no appeals to logic or real attempt
Whenever I need to get angry I simply browse their collection of absurd and preposterous cartoons (http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons), the multitude of which suggests the primary method of transfer of information from the site to its readers...
If you cannot prove that Big Bang is true then how is it less Fairy Tale than religion? I just don't see how they are much different. Do you agree?
Aemilius Paulus
10-15-2009, 00:17
I can't believe in a creator. But you can believe in Man. Sounds fair... :inquisitive:
See, that is my main problem with arguments creationists make. They are always snatching things out of context and making such silly comparisons for obvious purposes. Rarely will you see a creationist pull together a halfway-decent attempt at justifying their position with (mock) science. But at least they are trying to use science :shrug:
See, that is my main problem with arguments creationists make. They are always snatching things out of context and making such silly comparisons for obvious purposes. Rarely will you see a creatinst pull together a halfway-decent attempt at justifying their position with (mock) science. But at least theya re trying to use science :shrug:
How was my first original post not science?
I was simply making a point with that last post. Saying my God is false because somebody says so isn't fair to me.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:24
I believe I proved it when I said the universe should go from order to disorder. It seems evolution back the opposite theory. What are your thoughts on this?
Our disorder is proved is by the fact we are made from atoms the more movement for want of a better word the more energy is in the system hence the more space needed for the universe.
If we approach absolute zero the disorder will reduce in the atoms and eventually stop. This may happen one day and fullfill your biblical theory
We cannot prove it stops because that would require input of energy to the system therefore your asking me to prove something I cannot prove
Our disorder is proved is by the fact we are made from atoms the more movement for want of a better word the more energy is in the system hence the more space needed for the universe.
If we approach absolute zero the disorder will reduce in the atoms and eventually stop. This may happen one day and fullfill your biblical theory
We cannot prove it stops because that would require input of energy to the system therefore your asking me to prove something I cannot prove
Taken and understood :bow:
Aemilius Paulus
10-15-2009, 00:26
If you cannot prove that Big Bang is true then how is it less Fairy Tale than religion? I just don't see how they are much different. Do you agree?
I do agree if you were correct. The problem is that I tend to have a negative perception about Young Earth Creationist Christians in the sense that I (perhaps wrongfully) view their beliefs as safe alternative to the tedious and difficult thinking they have to do when they believe in science. Basically I am saying Creationism is the stupid man's science. Please tell me how I am not correct.
The scientists know their models, and we do not. They can explain Big Bang, and so far all of them have some sort of general consensus that this is it, give or take (many) errors - but nevertheless they can tell it was Big Bang and not something else. Now, the scientists are notorious for disagreeing, and this is no conspiracy that most of them agree on the basics of Big Bang. Look, once again, the scientists are not in a conspiracy. Scientists would gladly accept creationism if they had the same evidence for it as for their other theories. I take their consensus as a good sign.
And before you you lambaste me for believing in crap I do not understand, I challenge you to decipher the Bible for me. Face it, both are difficult to understand, and Bible more so, because it can be interpreted in any manner imaginable. Why do you think our cultural religion has changed so fundamentally since its inception? The difference is that science become cleared and cleared, while religion remain cut in stone.
In any case, praise your god you are not a Muslim. Qur'an is often cited as the most impossible to read non-amateur (hehe, and the irony is that Mohammed supposedly wrote it - which Mohammed cited as his only miracle in this world - the bloke had humour :laugh4:) book in the world...
Do not believe in modern science - believe in the same sort of creation tales that men have been telling since the Late Neolithic! See, I would actually respect Creation "science" a great deal more if they at least offered somethign new. However, that is not so. All the other stories are largely the same. And no, the Neolithic men were not exactly what I would call experts in science...
Also, if you try to say that the shared myths are due to our common ancestry I will have to point out that regardless of where we came from, it was not the Eden, which is explicitly stated as being in the Middle East IIRC. Men did not radiate from there - the radiocarbon dating has a margin of error, but it has decreased with the last and only major revision. We can now tell where people came and when. No, people did not populate the Earth in 6,000 years. Countless artefacts are much more ancient than that.
I'll be :daisy: - I am in the argument...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 00:28
You trash my bible, I understand and do not judge you. But i'd to know, what do you believe and how did you come about believing it as truth? Was it a book? Or your own mind? Or someone elses mind? My following puts myself under a God. Atheism says "I am my own God. I decide right from wrong."
Do you think you know everything? Maybe half of everything? Let's say you know half of everything there is to know. Do you think my God could be in the other half you don't know?
No you don't understand. I have already told you what I believe, but since you aren't willing to read it, let me make it really embarressingly clear to you:
I BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
I do agree if you were correct. The problem is that I tend to have a negative perception about Young Earth Creationist Christians in the sense that I perhaps wrongfully view their beliefs as safe alternative to the tedious and difficult thinking they have to do when they believe in science.
Do not believe in modern science - believe in the same sort of creation tales that men have been telling since the Late Neolithic! See, I would actually respect Creation "science" a great deal more if they at least offered somethign new. However, that is not so. All the other stories are largely the same. And no, the Neolithic men were not exactly what I would call experts in science...
Also, if you try to say that the shared myths are due to our common ancestry I will have to point out that regardless of where we came from, it was not the Eden, which is explicitly stated as being in the Middle East IIRC. Men did not radiate from there - the radiocarbon dating has a margin of error, but it has decreased with the last and only major revision. We can now tell where people came and when. No, people did not populate the Earth in 6,000 years. Countless artefacts are much more ancient than that.
Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.
A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.
Radiocarbon dating may say millions of years even. But what about others?
Oldest tree? 4300
Oldest desert? 4200
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.
What about these?
No you don't understand. I have already told you what I believe, but since you aren't willing to read it, let me make it really embarressingly clear to you:
I BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
I am happy you believe this way. What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?
Kadagar_AV
10-15-2009, 00:35
I have my problems with it too hence why I do not see it is a viable theory for the question I have.
The answer I see makes more sense and answers all the questions. :smile:
I hate unanswered questions.
It takes a developed human mind to come to terms with the fact that we can not, ever, have all the answers.
For people who does not wish to practise thinking, you have religion. Just insert "god did it" or "it is gods will", or why not "god works in mysterious ways" <- into any topic at all, and you are all set. No need for thinking, you can just go on with your life.
Then there are those, of course, who believe in god AND practises thinking. Those I have the outmost respect for. However, young earth creationists are not part of this crowd.
Aemilius Paulus
10-15-2009, 00:36
BTW, I edited my previous post significantly - check it.
EDIT: Oh well, I will repost it:
I do agree if you were correct. The problem is that I tend to have a negative perception about Young Earth Creationist Christians in the sense that I (perhaps wrongfully) view their beliefs as safe alternative to the tedious and difficult thinking they have to do when they believe in science. Basically I am saying Creationism is the stupid man's science. Please tell me how I am not correct.
The scientists know their models, and we do not. They can explain Big Bang, and so far all of them have some sort of general consensus that this is it, give or take (many) errors - but nevertheless they can tell it was Big Bang and not something else. Now, the scientists are notorious for disagreeing, and this is no conspiracy that most of them agree on the basics of Big Bang. Look, once again, the scientists are not in a conspiracy. Scientists would gladly accept creationism if they had the same evidence for it as for their other theories. I take their consensus as a good sign.
And before you you lambaste me for believing in crap I do not understand, I challenge you to decipher the Bible for me. Face it, both are difficult to understand, and Bible more so, because it can be interpreted in any manner imaginable. Why do you think our cultural religion has changed so fundamentally since its inception? The difference is that science become cleared and cleared, while religion remain cut in stone.
In any case, praise your god you are not a Muslim. Qur'an is often cited as the most impossible to read non-amateur (hehe, and the irony is that Mohammed supposedly wrote it - which Mohammed cited as his only miracle in this world - the bloke had humour ) book in the world...
Do not believe in modern science - believe in the same sort of creation tales that men have been telling since the Late Neolithic! See, I would actually respect Creation "science" a great deal more if they at least offered somethign new. However, that is not so. All the other stories are largely the same. And no, the Neolithic men were not exactly what I would call experts in science...
Also, if you try to say that the shared myths are due to our common ancestry I will have to point out that regardless of where we came from, it was not the Eden, which is explicitly stated as being in the Middle East IIRC. Men did not radiate from there - the radiocarbon dating has a margin of error, but it has decreased with the last and only major revision. We can now tell where people came and when. No, people did not populate the Earth in 6,000 years. Countless artefacts are much more ancient than that.
I'll be - I am in the argument...
It takes a developed human mind to come to terms with the fact that we can not, ever, have all the answers.
For people who does not wish to practise thinking, you have religion. Just insert "god did it" or "it is gods will", or why not "god works in mysterious ways" <- into any topic at all, and you are all set. No need for thinking, you can just go on with your life.
Then there are those, of course, who believe in god AND practises thinking. Those I have the outmost respect for. However, young earth creationists are not part of this crowd.
My argument still stands. Believing in a young earth doesn't make me wrong compared to all the other theories because I believe in the limiting factors on Earth and what they stand for.
I will quote myself so that everyone reads this.
"Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.
A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.
Radiocarbon dating may say millions of years even. But what about others?
Oldest tree? 4300
Oldest desert? 4200
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.
What about these?"
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:40
Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.
A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.
Radiocarbon dating may say millions of years even. But what about others?
Oldest tree? 4300
Oldest desert? 4200
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.
What about these?
I take issue with the assertion on earth should be flatter now that is wrong the erroded material will still be here its just been moved somewhere else thats how errosion works hence we have errosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_erosion) and we have deposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(geology))
Sorry for all the wiki stuff its just easier to find
I take issue with the assertion on earth should be flatter now that is wrong the erroded material will still be here its just been moved somewhere else thats how errosion works hence we have errosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_erosion) and we have deposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(geology))
Sorry for all the wiki stuff its just easier to find
Okay, that was pure observation. But what of the other 8 Limiting Factors I named?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 00:46
I am happy you believe this way. What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?
His Logos is the message he delivered, not the books people wrote about him.
Go away and read the Bible, or at least go to a Theologian and have them explain it to you.
His Logos is the message he delivered, not the books people wrote about him.
Go away and read the Bible, or at least go to a Theologian and have them explain it to you.
I'd like to think the books people wrote of him depict him well. Since they were in Jesus's time and we are not. They saw miracles and wrote of them. I'm sure seeing Jesus come out of the grave convinced them then and should still be convincing us.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 00:49
Okay, that was pure observation. But what of the other 8 Limiting Factors I named?
The Saxons were converted by celtic missionary priests they believd in other gods before that and therefore believed in a differant Adam therefore they had wrote for them by these priests a new belief system and creation story in the old saxon tongue.
trees are only around in the last few million years any film that shows grass and dinosaus is wrong since most plants can only live at most a few hundred years it does not surprise me at all that the oldest tree is that old
There is proof of deserts in Ireland that no longer exist they must be hundreds of millions of years old
The Saxons were converted by celtic missionary priests they believd in other gods before that and therefore believed in a differant Adam therefore they had wrote for them by these priests a new belief system and creation story in the old saxon tongue.
trees are only around in the last few million years any film that shows grass and dinosaus is wrong since most plants can only live at most a few hundred years it does not surprise me at all that the oldest tree is that old
There is proof of deserts in Ireland that no longer exist they must be hundreds of millions of years old
Adam begot Cain begot.... That's what they have. No fake Adam. Especially since the geneology dated Earth to 4300 years as well.
The coincidence of the age of the tree is interesting though when it coincides with the other limiting factors I named. Don't you agree?
The deserts must be millions of years old? How could they know that? Plus still the coincidence between the factors is in play here.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 00:57
I'd like to think the books people wrote of him depict him well. Since they were in Jesus's time and we are not. They saw miracles and wrote of them. I'm sure seeing Jesus come out of the grave convinced them then and should still be convincing us.
There's no evidence that any of the Evangelists were actually eye witnesses to the events they record. Only Mathew may have been. Mark makes horrific erros of Geography, Luke is just writing Greek Biography and John barely offers an actual narrative (though he is apparently the only one with a working knowledge of pre- AD 60 Jerusalem).
Faith is a wonderful thing, but to hold it direct contravention of sense and reason is to abuse the mind God gave you.
There's no evidence that any of the Evangelists were actually eye witnesses to the events they record. Only Mathew may have been. Mark makes horrific erros of Geography, Luke is just writing Greek Biography and John barely offers an actual narrative (though he is apparently the only one with a working knowledge of pre- AD 60 Jerusalem).
Faith is a wonderful thing, but to hold it direct contravention of sense and reason is to abuse the mind God gave you.
I guess I simply do not see it as a contravention when the answers I have make sense to me.
It goes to say, why fix somethin that aint broke? :laugh:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 01:04
I guess I simply do not see it as a contravention when the answers I have make sense to me.
It goes to say, why fix somethin that aint broke? :laugh:
Absolute Faith in something repleat with errors is pretty broke, Zain.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 01:04
I am off to check my Facebook now I had a few pints tonight watching the Ireland Montenegro game and its time to go to bed here in Ireland.
I will never convince any believer in god there is no god I can only convince them the laws of physics that I comprehend are real therefore I beg you to leave the bible down and engulf yourself in scientific theory for a while and understand it too.
Finally then one day sit yourself down as I did myself and debate internally the probable existence of a divine creature
If you come to a differant conclusion thats your own lookout
Now where did I leave that playboy
Absolute Faith in something repleat with errors is pretty broke, Zain.
If that's what you think then I can say at least I will die happy. Not wasting my time asking questions I don't understand and don't really care to know. My answer is my salvation.
I am off to check my Facebook now I had a few pints tonight watching the Ireland Montenegro game and its time to go to bed here in Ireland.
I will never convince any believer in god there is no god I can only convince them the laws of physics that I comprehend are real therefore I beg you to leave the bible down and engulf yourself in scientific theory for a while and understand it too.
Finally then one day sit yourself down as I did myself and debate internally the probable existence of a divine creature
If you come to a differant conclusion thats your own lookout
Now where did I leave that playboy
Goodnight GC. May you carry peace in your heart and mind.
Aemilius Paulus
10-15-2009, 01:08
Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.
A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.
[QUOTE=Zain;2354571]Radiocarbon dating may say millions of years even. But what about others?
Wrong, not unless someone :daisy: up very badly. Plus, radiocarbon is only accurate for 60,000 years.
Oldest tree? 4300
Wrong, 5,000, and if you look at the clonal colonies, some are anywhere between 100,000 and a million years old.
Oldest desert? 4200
WTH? How do you date that? WHY would you date that? That is not supposed be measured. That is like saying - alright, this field is 5,000 years old.
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Wrong, some are at least 150,000 years old. If you count the dead ones, it will be even more ancient...
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Wrong. Very silly too. Everything we know of in the universe but matter and energy itself is created, lingers on for some time, and then is destroyed only to make way for new cycle. We already know of planets, suns, black holes, asteroids, nebulae, etc, etc which are being both currently destroyed and generated. Saying we would run out of comets is like saying we would run out of water on earth just because it evaporates. Of course it evaporates, but it also comes back. So do comets. We have not see the Oort cloud, but there is no reason why it cannot exist. After all, if everything else is renewed in this Universe, why cannot comets do the same, especially since they are so comparatively simple compared to the formation of suns or planets.
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Wrong. It will be. Everything is in motion on this planet. Ten million years ago there was no Erie, nor anything similar there. Everything is constantly changing. Erosion will shape the current landscape.
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Good Lord, have you not studied geology at all, or did you flunk it :P? I will not even bother to explain this one..
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
Sumerians are older than the Creationist Young Earth. Explain that. Plus, the last scientific source that was actually modern and revolutionaryin its time that the creationists listened to was James Usshers reckoning that Creation was on 23rd of October, 4004 BC. That was in 1648, when men believed in witches, body humours, and such rubbish. Not exactly cutting-edge science, eh? :laugh4:
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
Eh? Sorry, please elaborate.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.
Do I have to list all the manure Saxons believed? You trust the Saxons but you do not trust Stephen Hawking? Please...
What about these?
Good question: what about?
Tribesman
10-15-2009, 01:10
Adam begot Cain begot.... That's what they have.
bloody hell :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Do you even own a bible ?
have you ever even seen one?
[QUOTE=Zain;2354571]Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.
A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.
Wrong, not unless someone f:daisy: up very badly. Plus, radiocarbon is only accurate for 60,000 years.
Wrong, 5,000, and if you look at the clonal colonies, some are anywhere between 100,000 and a million years old.
WTH? How do you date that? WHY would you date that? That is not supposed be measured. That is like saying - alright, this field is 5,000 years old.
Wrong, some are at least 150,000 years old. If you count the dead ones...
Wrong. Very silly too. Everything we know of in the universe but matter and energy itself is created, lingers on for some time, and then is destroyed only to make way for new cycle. We already know of planets, suns, black holes, asteroids, nebulae, etc, etc which are being both currently destroyed and generated. Saying we would run out of comets is like saying we would run out of water on earth just because it evaporates. Of course it evaporates, but it also comes back. So do comets. We have not see the Oort cloud, but there is no reason why it cannot exist. After all, if everything else is renewed in this Universe, why cannot comets do the same, especially since they are so comparatively simple compared to the formation of suns or planets.
Wrong. It will be. Everything is in motion on this planet. Ten million years ago there was no Erie, nor anything similar there. Everything is constantly changing. Erosion will shape the current landscape.
Good Lord, have you not studied geology at all, or did you flunk it :P? I will not even bother to explain this one..
Sumerians are older than the Creationist Young Earth. Explain that. Plus, the last scientific source that was actually modern and revolutionaryin its time that the creationists listened to was James Usshers reckoning that Creation was on 23rd of October, 4004 BC. That was in 1648, when men believed in witches, body humours, and such rubbish. Not exactly cutting-edge science, eh? :laugh4:
Eh? Sorry, please elaborate.
Do I have to list all the manure Saxons believed? You trust the Saxons but you do not trust Stephen Hawking? Please...
Good question: what about?
Alright then, when I throw fact you throw another "fact". I grow tired and hungry. We shall talk another time.
Pannonian
10-15-2009, 01:16
Good Lord, have you not studied geology at all, or did you flunk it :P? I will not even bother to explain this one..
Tectonic plates are what you serve communion wafers on.
Crazed Rabbit
10-15-2009, 01:28
How can I test to see if the Big Bang is true? I would definitely enjoy some incite from you CR :smile:
Check out the observational evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence) section from wiki.
What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?
Just because a person doesn't believe in your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean they don't believe in the word of God.
CR
Tribesman
10-15-2009, 02:06
Just because a person doesn't believe in your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean they don't believe in the word of God.
How can someone do an interpretation of the bible when it appears they havn't even read one?
Samurai Waki
10-15-2009, 02:09
Zain, if you want to discuss matters of theology relating to science, I think perhaps you should study a bit on Einstein, I bet you'd be surprised how considerate he is to both sides of the argument.
Since you're not interested in discussing the (now) testable theories on The Big Bang ref: Large Hadron Collider. I believe you have absolutely zero desire to stray from the dogma that has been stitched into you, and you know that's fine, but it doesn't go against God to consider science, since there isn't a single verse within the any edition of the bible, that actually discusses science in detail, so it should be considered "open ground".
But, you're not going to be prove me wrong, so it feels like a waste even writing this. :shrug:
Strike For The South
10-15-2009, 03:23
Zain I'm am throughly glad you're sticking to your guns. But I propose this question to you: Does it really matter what mere men say?
For me my faith and my learning have always been seperate and my faith works on a different plane than all my other learning. When I learn about evolution it doesn't bother me becuase I don't think it matters to my faith.
I am certianly not perfect but my faith has been swayed more by the actions of people than the actions of science.
"Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one." - Capt. Willard
The first post had several misconceptions about the laws of thermodynamics, the theories of the big bang and evolution, and the overall concept of the scientific method. If the theories contradicted the laws of thermodynamics, some scientist would have brought this up and debunked the theory. This is how science works. Everything is there to be questioned and scrutinized.
More disturbing is the fact that Zain puts quite a lot of stock in the Bible, and yet does not have a basic understanding of the history of the separate books or of the canon as a whole. If something was this important to me, I would prefer to have a little more knowledge about how that item came into being. I would definitely want to educate myself on it before trying to use it to debunk something in a completely different field of knowledge. Even Navaros would be appalled at this attempt. :no:
If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible as fact, your brain has reached heat death. There are many ways God can fit into scientific theories and laws for the faithful. The big bang theorizes on the expansion of the universe, but not the nature of the singularity. Why can't the singularity be God? He is everywhere, after all. "Let there be light": I'm sure there was plenty of light after the Planck epoch. Why can't the gravitation constant or speed of light be part of the framework God set aside for the operation of the world? Why can't human and animal evolution be part of a long process covered in the fifth and sixth "days"?
ajaxfetish
10-15-2009, 04:24
But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in.
Science requires belief in neither the big bang nor evolution. Science has been around much longer than either theory, and may replace either or both in the future. I don't know where you got that idea. Science does require belief in a few very fundamental, unprovable concepts: that our sensory input is an accurate source of information about the world, that cause and effect exists, that the (for lack of a better word) laws of the universe are the same regardless of time and place, and so forth. Of course, good luck managing life in general, let alone science, without those beliefs.
My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.
. . .
Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
The Earth is not a closed system.
The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word of God and do not entirely trust the other translations.
The original manuscripts of the bible are not now available for study and translation, nor were they when the KJV was created. For that matter, much of the bible was not originally written in Hebrew. The KJV relied heavily on earlier English translations, such as Tyndale's, which in turn relied heavily on the Latin vulgate, which in turn relied heavily (IIRC) on the Septuagint for its old testament text and which was translated from manuscripts which had already been through numerous transcriptions. As I understand it, some recent translations have had access to older manuscripts than the KJV, so trusting KJV over other translations makes no sense.
KukriKhan
10-15-2009, 06:16
Tectonic plates are what you serve communion wafers on.
El-oh-freekin-el.
Our young Zain, way back in his #39 post actually nailed it:
Are you a believer? If you are, then believing in Evolution is a contradiction because death before sin by Adam never happened.
If you're not, then I respect your opinion. Although if a designer made a perfect being there would be no need for faith because we would be our own God. We wouldn't need him if we were perfect.
My bolding.
You are perfect. I am perfect. He is perfect. We are perfect. They are perfect.
I am who am.
All is perfect.
Or not. In which case one is a christian. Or something else.
Meneldil
10-15-2009, 06:52
This is where I have to say Wow. I can't believe in a creator. But you can believe in Man. Sounds fair... :inquisitive:
To use your incredibly weird argument:
"Can you see, smell, touch or feel the creator?". I cannot. Not only I can't see him, smell him or touch him, but I can't feel him either. No warm fuzzy feeling inside my chest (as it happens with love), no tear to my eyes, no pain in my neck. No nothing.
Yet, I see man everyday. I see science at work everyday.
Do you believe in internet? Does it contradict your beliefs about religion? Because according to me, internet is pretty much (the result of) science. If you think science requires to believe, and that those beliefs aren't compatible with a belief in god or some religion, then, what are you doing here enjoying your high speed connection, your fridge, your TV, your car and what not? These didn't pop out of nowhere. These haven't been created by god. They've been created by man, whether you like it or not.
I'm not even saying you can't believe in a creator. There are many believers on this forum whom I respect. I have no issues with their beliefs. I find these beliefs weird, out-of-touch with reality, but I can also understand how believing in something is important for some human beings. Now, basing your whole life around a book and blind faith is a completely different story.
How was my first original post not science?
Because you got it all wrong. No offense, but your knowledge about science in general seems quite similar to your knowledge about american history and the Bible: quite poor.
Banquo's Ghost
10-15-2009, 07:38
In general, this has been a very respectful and civilised thread discussing a contentious subject.
Very well done all. Please continue. :bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 08:22
The original manuscripts of the bible are not now available for study and translation, nor were they when the KJV was created. For that matter, much of the bible was not originally written in Hebrew. The KJV relied heavily on earlier English translations, such as Tyndale's, which in turn relied heavily on the Latin vulgate, which in turn relied heavily (IIRC) on the Septuagint for its old testament text and which was translated from manuscripts which had already been through numerous transcriptions. As I understand it, some recent translations have had access to older manuscripts than the KJV, so trusting KJV over other translations makes no sense.
Correct except for one point. Jerome did learn Hebrew eventually, and the majoriety of the Vulgate Old Testemant was directly translated with reference to Jewish tradition rather than Greek.
I can think of some really good reasons to be unconvinced by evolution or the Big Bang, but thus far I think they're as close as we've got and the Bible has nothing to do with it either way.
gaelic cowboy
10-15-2009, 13:25
The Earth is not a closed system.
I believe Zain meant the universe was a closed system.
The Conservation of Angular Momentum. I'd like to describe this with a very simple explanation.
Say you put some kids on a Merry-Go-Round and get it spinning extremely fast. The ride is spinning clockwise so fast that the kids fly off. For one, this is poor parenting. For two, the kids will spin clockwise in the air before they hit resistance. This will happen every time.
Let's back up a few years...
The Big Bang consists of every atom, every piece of matter in the Universe coming together into a space much smaller than the size of a period on your screen. Then, it began to spin, faster and faster, until it exploded and bam, here we are billions of years later.
You seem to be implying that the universe expanded out from the initial singularity because it was spinning rapidly, which is not what the Big Bang theory suggests. Some cosmological models do suggest a universe with a non-zero total angular momentum and some do not, but in none I have seen is a large initial angular momentum suggested as the main cause of the expansion of the universe, nor an early universe "spinning faster and faster". In any case, we would certainly still expect to see objects with retrograde rotation due to collisions and the like.
Oldest tree? 4300
Oldest desert? 4200
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.
What about these?"
You're getting into numerology there; if you pick one specific number to be significant, and search through all of nature looking for examples where it appears and discarding ones where it doesn't, you are bound to see a pattern, especially if you are willing to allow a certain amount of wiggle room in how close an example needs to be to count as a "hit". The fact is there are many objects in nature which appear much older than 4000 years, and no-one has yet found a convincing scientific explanation for how this could be consistent with a 4000 year-old universe.
This thread demonstrates as AP said the futility. Especially the futility of the backroom. i have never ever seen anyone change their mind on an issue. We mare all arguing for the sake of arguing. We should form a debate team we wouldd be unstoppable. And whenever we falter we will throw tribes in to shout bollocks until we think of something
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I would disagree that no-one ever changes their mind; I for one certainly have changed my mind and shifted my position on issues as a result of backroom discussions. I can say from experience that there definitely have been occasions where I have been annoyed that someone could believe something so patently false, perhaps even spammed off some snarky comment in retaliation, only on later reflection to realise "actually, he has a point".
What doesn't generally happen is for someone to simply hold their hands up and say "OK, you're right, I'm wrong, I will accept everything you say uncritically from now on." Unless it's on some very specific or minor factual error, no one likes to admit they have lost, and I for one often struggle to digest every point made in a thread in real time. I don't think it's fair to say a discussion is pointless if it doesn't result in one side immediately convincing the other side that they were completely wrong.
ajaxfetish
10-15-2009, 15:57
Correct except for one point. Jerome did learn Hebrew eventually, and the majoriety of the Vulgate Old Testemant was directly translated with reference to Jewish tradition rather than Greek.Thank you. I was unsure on that point.
I believe Zain meant the universe was a closed system. But he was using entropy to argue against evolution. All the evidence for evolution is on Earth, which is not a closed system, and which therefore we should not expect to be increasing in entropy. Thus, it's a fundamentally flawed argument.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-15-2009, 16:25
If that's what you think then I can say at least I will die happy. Not wasting my time asking questions I don't understand and don't really care to know. My answer is my salvation.
Ah, an interesting but none the less fallacious argument. If your immortal soul concerns me (and it should) then your beliefs, and your reasons for holding them should concern me as well.
Oh, and regarding the Anglo-Saxon King's genaeology, it also goes back to Woden and Brutus at various points, both of which are nonsense. Also, the medieval monks would naturally try to make a connection to Adam, that doesn't make the genaeology correct.
Agent Miles
10-15-2009, 16:32
Just to clarify:
Religion teaches us truths about ourselves and science teaches us truths about the universe. These are two parallel paths, one to greater wisdom and the other to greater knowledge that never cross. I cannot scribble an equation on a blackboard that will explain conclusively why I believe I will love my wife only, for the rest of my life. However, I know that I can do this for the relation of energy to matter (one of the few equations that everyone knows). Thus, belief and science should not be blurred. The problem is when a belief has a set of truths and science has a different set of truths. Now, no scientist has ever asked for a grant to disprove anything in the Bible. It just happens. Still, people of religion seem compelled to “discuss” science that conflicts with their belief.
Our science can explain the universe we observe back for 13.7 billion years to a point where it was less than one million, million, million, million, million, million, millionth of a second old, actually. The science really works and is constantly tested and checked. We really can know this.
Then, the universe was smaller than a proton. At this scale things just happen. The science that governs small things, Quantum Mechanics, describes how tiny particles and anti-particles come into being all the time, borrow energy from the fabric of space time and then recombine returning the energy. This makes space time elastic in that it can lose and regain energy, only to return to zero like a wave function. General Relativity, the science of really large things, tells us how gravity bends, twists and drags space time, especially around black holes. The sort of anti-force to gravity is Dark Energy. Quantum Mechanics tells us how DE stretches space time. So the tiny speck of space time that existed at that first fraction of a second has been molded by gravity and DE over the eons into the universe we see today.
So what happened at time equal to zero (t=0)? We don’t have a science to describe what happens at the tremendous energy level of t=0. People who complain that the universe cannot come from nothing because it violates such and such law of whatever science always miss the truth. As I explained above, we don’t use General Relativity to describe how really small things behave because GR’s laws won’t work. We have a different science with different rules for that (Quantum Mechanics). The rules of Thermal Dynamics don’t apply to the universe at t=0 any more than the rules of soccer do. Besides, it’s possible that all the matter and energy in the universe combines with its own gravity to equal out to zero, so you may get everything from nothing.
Now as to evolution and entropy, entropy states that everything becomes more disordered with time. So how can beautifully complex life forms come from a bunch of atoms? Watches do not simply assemble from a box of parts and complex systems do not simply arise because this would be an increase in order. This is a common misconception of the real science actually.
Imagine oxygen atoms bouncing around in one half of a box and nitrogen atoms on the other side of a divider in the box. Everything is well ordered. Now you remove the divider and the two groups of atoms bounce around until they are all mixed up. This is obviously less ordered. The laws of entropy are good. Well not only do you get oxygen and nitrogen atoms intermingling, you get them combining into nitrous oxide! However, this does not violate the entropy laws as it is actually greater disorder. It’s like washing a bunch of red and blue socks in hot water and getting them all mixed in together, then you find a few green socks where the dye faded, too.
This works no matter how many different atoms get mixed in. You get ever more disordered combinations of atoms, called molecules. Eventually, you get molecules that can replicate, which again is just a new level of disorder for the molecules. DNA molecules are quite simply disordered atoms combined into molecules that replicate, and the laws of entropy support this.
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Astronomers believe that comets are leftover debris from a collection of gas, ice, rocks, and dust that formed the outer planets about 4.6 billion years ago.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html
As for the rest of your list; there are no problems with old objects lacking. You can find examples of older tree fossils, animals, deserts etc.; basically whatever you want to if you just bother.
Ironside
10-15-2009, 18:44
But he was using entropy to argue against evolution. All the evidence for evolution is on Earth, which is not a closed system, and which therefore we should not expect to be increasing in entropy. Thus, it's a fundamentally flawed argument.
Ajax
To expand upon this. If you add energy, you can decrease the entropy locally, but reversing the process will create more entropy that the previous reduction. Or why a perpetuum mobile will never work as you always will have energy losses.
Same priciple is used in a fridge and freezer, as the entropy in a closed system wouldn't allow anything else than room temperature. That's why a energy sucking (heat=energy) freezer drain power instead of producing it.
So to suppport the entropy decrease of living beings, you'll need an energy source. That's about as probable as a big energy emitting ball hovering in the sky.
Can also add that evolution is not about the creation of life, but about how life have evolved afterwards.
Finally, according to the Bible (Genesis 5), the flood happened 1429 years after the creation of Adam, so if earth were created around 2300 BC, the flood happened around 871 BC.
The historical sources seems to be awfully silent on this matter and well actually existing despite humanity's reduction to Noah and his sons. And the antediluvian sources are even in different languages before the tower of Babel.
Whoever came up with that time line is more historical ignorant than the people living in the middle ages, a time when the biblical time line were taken more literal than today.
Aemilius Paulus
10-16-2009, 05:21
BTW, Zain - oldest living thing on earth - a creosote bush of about 11,700 years (http://www.nativetreesociety.org/species_west/creosote.htm). You can also Google it to find numerous results stating the same thing, just to check the validity of this.
Big_John
10-16-2009, 05:49
only god has the power to lock this thread.
only god has the power to lock this thread.
I stand corrected, this thread does have redeeming value. It got Big_John out of lurker mode. :bow:
Kadagar_AV
10-16-2009, 07:49
BTW, Zain - oldest living thing on earth - a creosote bush of about 11,700 years (http://www.nativetreesociety.org/species_west/creosote.htm). You can also Google it to find numerous results stating the same thing, just to check the validity of this.
That is not what the bible says, and Google is a tool of Satan.
You know, to accept what you say is true, one must BELIEVE that modern techniques to date things are correct. And they obviosly can not be, as they contradict the bible. What more evidence do you need?
Here is a link if you want to further your knowledge of the world we live in. (http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating/)
Papewaio
10-16-2009, 08:29
Life increases net entropy faster.
Conservation of angular momentum. Have to figure in collisions as that allows changes in directions.
As for the Big Bang and time = 0. It is a bit more than that. Before the Big Bang there wasn't any time, mass, energy, the rules of physics actually come with the universe they are deployed with. They are bounded to the universe that creates them. The half life of protons to neutrons in a particular universe may vary.
Interestingly enough the rules of evolution might actually be applicable at a multi-verse level. In other words they hold true in multiple universes.
Tribesman
10-16-2009, 08:49
Conservation of angular momentum. Have to figure in collisions as that allows changes in directions.
You can't say that , you are just attacking Zains theory thus you have no place in this topic:yes:
Or....Zains theory was thoroughly trashed on the first page as it could never stand up to any scrutiny
Rhyfelwyr
10-16-2009, 11:19
In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old? At least, that's what Bishop Usshers calculations put it at, and I thought that was largely accepted today?
Not that I believe either, but I don't think I've heard of a 4,000 year earth theory before.
Tribesman
10-16-2009, 12:11
In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old?
You have to take into consideration the flood, nearly everything died in the flood which means worldwide you have to start from scratch from the time noah got the boat unloaded.
Though that doesn't factor in that the animals would have died once they got off the boat as everything was cleansed so there was nothing for them to eat, then again with god magic the boat was not only big enough to hold all the animals and their years food it was big enough to hold two years food:yes:
Now some people might say that as the dimensions are given the size is fixed which proves that it cannot be true.
But as it is in the bible then it must be true and as the dimensions are there then it is scientificalasticy true as they wouldn't put in numbers if they didn't work.
The answer is simple. The ark was a tardis and noah came from a little village called gallifrey which was by what later became the sea of gallilee
This still leaves problems with motion, not like the problems of motion associated with "dad dancing" to spin me round like a record but other motions.
to scientificalicalculy explore these motions we need to look at the plank theory.
For this theory we will need some double sided sticky tape, a pen, a ruler, a pair of sharp scissors(adult supervision required) and some glitter.
oh and of course a piece of timber (not gopher wood please)as we cannot do the plank theory without a plank
ooops nearly forgot , as this is a complicated question we also need a chicken and an egg.
So then children, gather your materials and the fun experiment in the wonders of science will continue shortly.
one last thing , please boil the egg before you put it in the chicken or the lesson will get very messy right at the start.
Big_John
10-16-2009, 18:25
I stand corrected, this thread does have redeeming value. It got Big_John out of lurker mode. :bow:
i can feel the creationism threads in my bones...
Aemilius Paulus
10-16-2009, 20:04
In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old? At least, that's what Bishop Usshers calculations put it at, and I thought that was largely accepted today?
Not that I believe either, but I don't think I've heard of a 4,000 year earth theory before.
Yes, it is 6.000 years, and the only reason why people confuse it with 4.000 is because universe was supposedly created in 4004 BCE.
The answer is simple. The ark was a tardis and noah came from a little village called gallifrey which was by what later became the sea of gallilee.
:laugh4:
Referring to the original point, surely the fact that a minority of heavenly bodies are spinning as opposed to what is predicted is evidence of the chaotic nature of the universe and the role of random chance in it. It would look far more suspicious that the universe had been designed if all planets/stars/moons/asteroids etc. behaved exactly the same way.
Kadagar_AV
10-17-2009, 01:01
Referring to the original point, surely the fact that a minority of heavenly bodies are spinning as opposed to what is predicted is evidence of the chaotic nature of the universe and the role of random chance in it. It would look far more suspicious that the universe had been designed if all planets/stars/moons/asteroids etc. behaved exactly the same way.
NO!!! Be silent... This is way too much fun to have logic have a say!
After all, there is only one god and he is the one who has made all of this happen.
Stop thinking and fall in line with the other... hmmmm... I am not sure how to put this. "Childs left beind?"
Tribesman
10-17-2009, 01:02
Right then.
I hope you all have your eggs now children , if you were very clever you will have noticed that the boiled egg you now have reacts in a different to an unboiled egg when you spin it. This is due to the heat killing the salmonella that would keep moving in an unboiled egg because if the salmonella is alive and it would get dizzy when it spins and have trouble balancing afterwards.
Please take your egg and put it in the chicken, do not worry about the protests of the chicken as the egg is the same size as when it came out so it must be able to go back into the gap where it came out as otherwise that would mean something has either appeared out of nothing or disappeared into nothing which cannot happen.
Now comes the hard part.
Take your plank, fix it to a brick wall using the tape, this is neccesary because wood is lighter than a brick wall and it could float away.
Though some say that if you put the wood against the wall but ensured it was closer to the center of the earth than the wall centrifugal force would keep it pressed against the wall without sticky tape.
This centrifugal force is false as the earth doesn't spin but remains fixed beneath its dome as it is written.
Using your ruler mark the centre of the plank with your pencil as an aiming point.
Now the fun. Take your chicken by the legs and spin it round clockwise really fast, really really fast like you are a bad parent and it is your child on a carousel ....release the spinning chicken at your aiming point.
View the results . if your chicken (or its pieces) are no longer spinning you have proved that momentum can be stopped. If doubt remains get another chicken and try again but spin anti-clockwise.
At this stage you should have some nice moist chicken residue on the wall and plank. consider this as a representation of a portion the moist bowl created by the maker to cover the earth.
Take your glitter and scatter it over the residue.
Doesn't it look just like the lights the creator placed in the bowl.:yes:
Ah finally, the sharp scissors. these can be used as a demonstration about the survival of the fittest. take the scissors and push them firmly up you nasal passage to see if you can find a anything in the neurocranium.
I have to hand it to you, Zain, you've taken some zingers in this thread and kept your cool. That deserves some measure of respect.
As for your contention that the Big Bang is as much an item of faith as any theology, like the other posters I think you missed the bus. Nobody sat up one morning and dreamed up the Big Bang out of whole cloth. As Crazed Rabbit so kindly pointed out, there was unexplained evidence, and a whole lot of smart people tried to get a handle on it, which eventually led to several competing theories of which the Big Bang was but one. That's how science is supposed to work.
As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of nature seems like one of the most genuine forms of worship.
To quote one of my favorite poets:
Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; [...]
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
I have to hand it to you, Zain, you've taken some zingers in this thread and kept your cool. That deserves some measure of respect.
As for your contention that the Big Bang is as much an item of faith as any theology, like the other posters I think you missed the bus. Nobody sat up one morning and dreamed up the Big Bang out of whole cloth. As Crazed Rabbit so kindly pointed out, there was unexplained evidence, and a whole lot of smart people tried to get a handle on it, which eventually led to several competing theories of which the Big Bang was but one. That's how science is supposed to work.
As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of nature seems like one of the most genuine forms of worship.
To quote one of my favorite poets:
Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; [...]
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.
I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman :wink: for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.
"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.
Once again, thank you all. :bow:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
OK lets start with things spinning the wrong way
If an object that is not spinning hits an object that is spinning what are the results?
If a spinning object hits a spinning object what are the results?
If two objects pass in close proximity what are the results?
What are the results if they are spinning or not spinning?
If I push a door where does the linear momentum become angular momentum?
when could that angular momentum become no momentum ?
when could the direction of the angular momentum become completly reversed?
Go on give us a laugh, where did you cut and paste that from?
Though of course if you knew what you was talking about it might help.
So lets go back to little things, very little things say at the atomic level ,what plank found something about spinning small things that make up big things?
Or alternately.....
...gives all that needs to be said.
we live on a flat earth under a bowl in which the lights are placed, after all if you want literal creationism like scripture says then you cannot argue against that "fact"
start at lesson 1 in science.
Do you want that one Phillipvs or shall I ?
Can you start by giving us which version of the one true word you are using as "truth" and then specify how far back you want to go with the errors it contains.
Ah, you don't understand the theory of evolution do you.
its quite common among creationists , especially young earth ones.
I was gonna add to this conversation, but looks like Tribesman already has it covered. Nothing more to add to it really. As much as it pains me to say this, I completely agree with Tribesman on this issue.
Vladimir
10-19-2009, 20:40
As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of
Hey look everybody. I found common ground with Lemur! :jumping:
That's good because I was about to send you to Madagascar (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17965-madagascar-biodiversity-under-threat-as-gangs-run-wild.html).
Papewaio
10-19-2009, 23:00
Ah finally, the sharp scissors. these can be used as a demonstration about the survival of the fittest. take the scissors and push them firmly up you nasal passage to see if you can find a anything in the neurocranium.
Hang on we are debating Christian based creationism not ancient Egyptian...
Pannonian
10-20-2009, 08:41
I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.
I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman :wink: for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.
"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.
Does he have a BSc in Christianity?
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 11:11
Does he have a BSc in Christianity?
It would be more impressive if he has lived 65 years on this earth and spent 45 years on another.
I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.
...
My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.
I'll tell you what Zain, In every denomination of Christianity there are principles that saves and there are principles that don't. I don't know which you follow, but common for most of them is the saving principle of faith in the Lord Jesus. There are some other common principles and required ordinances like baptism and following Christ's example of being an philanthropist.
It shouldn't matter if you believe the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years or 6 periods of billions of years. It is not a saving principle. Likewise Evolution, The Flood and the Big Bang. They are not saving principles and thus not worth your time. You can engage in discussions concerning these matters, but your faith doesn't stand or fall with e.g. Evolution. Perhaps God used evolution to develop humanity or he didn't - It shouldn't matter as you and the Christian world's salvation does not depend on this theory/scientific fact being a universal truth.
IMO there should be one faith - the faith that saves. The Christian world should shed the bickering and petty disagreements that has led to a diversity of 35 000 different Christian denominations and unite under one Christ.
They should tolerate the small differences in doctrinal beliefs - which in the Big picture does not matter anyway.
my 2 Agnostic cents.
Rhyfelwyr
10-20-2009, 17:27
It shouldn't matter if you believe the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years or 6 periods of billions of years. It is not a saving principle. Likewise Evolution, The Flood and the Big Bang. They are not saving principles and thus not worth your time. You can engage in discussions concerning these matters, but your faith doesn't stand or fall with e.g. Evolution. Perhaps God used evolution to develop humanity or he didn't - It shouldn't matter as you and the Christian world's salvation does not depend on this theory/scientific fact being a universal truth.
This is true, and people on both sides of the debate need to remember this.
IMO there should be one faith - the faith that saves. The Christian world should shed the bickering and petty disagreements that has led to a diversity of 35 000 different Christian denominations and unite under one Christ.
They should tolerate the small differences in doctrinal beliefs - which in the Big picture does not matter anyway.
This is more questionable. Usually, these disputes have been between denominations which have disagreed on saving principles. For example, being 'born again' is seen as a saving principle by many (including myself). For others, being in communion with a certain church might be a saving principle.
But the bickering isn't usually that bad. Of those 35,000 denominations, the vast majority will probably believe a good few thousand at least will also be a legitimate Christian church. Nobody (perhaps outwith a tiny minority) believes people aren't saved because of minor doctrinal disputes.
Kadagar_AV
10-20-2009, 20:14
This is true, and people on both sides of the debate need to remember this.
Well, one could argue that.
How many popes would have disagreed with you?
How many priests?
Not to mention all believers in history.
"True" <- sorry, but that is just laughable.
Sure, it follows the modern style of the christian belief. As the believers kind of had to agree science was correct after being intellectualy smacked around for some couple of hundred years.
But, and this is a huuuge but... Some of us, like me, respects Zain much more than the type of Christians you represent.
He has (or rather had) the guts to stand up against science because of his belief, while main stream christians retreat step by step when proved wrong.
One wonders how many steps it will take before the whole house falls in on itself :wall:
I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".
I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".
The question is whose interpretation you believe. The Bible can be read in many ways.
Aemilius Paulus
10-20-2009, 20:23
I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".
So do I for that matter. I loathe Young-Earth creationism but I do not see how modern science is compatible with religion. You can make it compatible, but that is hardly smooth, not as smooth as creation science operates.
Which is why I likewise cannot help but respect Zain for his defiant, uncompromising stance. He represents the ideal of Christianity - blind (:sweatdrop:), unquestionable faith, one that does not even attempt to rationalise its own existence.
However, whether such belief is good for the person, as opposed to good for their religion, that is debatable. Sadly, the only solution I see here is to abandon religion altogether, for we can do without the religion, but without science our world will collapse.
Kadagar_AV
10-20-2009, 23:58
The question is whose interpretation you believe. The Bible can be read in many ways.
You mean that God speak in many different ways?
Give me a break. I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted. I mean, God is like the ONLY being I would suppose would make himself perfectly clear on issues.
So do I for that matter. I loathe Young-Earth creationism but I do not see how modern science is compatible with religion. You can make it compatible, but that is hardly smooth, not as smooth as creation science operates.
Which is why I likewise cannot help but respect Zain for his defiant, uncompromising stance. He represents the ideal of Christianity - blind (:sweatdrop:), unquestionable faith, one that does not even attempt to rationalise its own existence.
However, whether such belief is good for the person, as opposed to good for their religion, that is debatable. Sadly, the only solution I see here is to abandon religion altogether, for we can do without the religion, but without science our world will collapse.
I would argue that it would be fun to let all scientists and atheists step down for a year, or maybe just a month, or a day... And let the priests and church going people handle everything.
Suffice to say, would that not be an interesting experiment?
I wonder if Angels would come from the sky, miracels would happen all aound the world...
From what I have read and heard, there hasn't been much in the way of miracles and such since the time when miracles were not held up to modern science.
One might wonder why there were so many miracles and saints before the average guy had some sort of schooling.
Rhyfelwyr
10-21-2009, 00:32
Well, one could argue that.
How many popes would have disagreed with you?
How many priests?
Not to mention all believers in history.
"True" <- sorry, but that is just laughable.
All of them until fairly recently, then the Pope became infallible and now you don't have to accept all the minor points of doctrine to be saved.
Anyway, I have hardly ever heard anyone today say you have to believe the earth is 6,000 years old to be saved. Remember, I was talking about saving principles. They might not be correct to think the earth is not 6,000 years old, but it doesn't mean they can't be a Christian, it's just a minor flaw.
Sure, it follows the modern style of the christian belief. As the believers kind of had to agree science was correct after being intellectualy smacked around for some couple of hundred years.
But, and this is a huuuge but... Some of us, like me, respects Zain much more than the type of Christians you represent.
He has (or rather had) the guts to stand up against science because of his belief, while main stream christians retreat step by step when proved wrong.
One wonders how many steps it will take before the whole house falls in on itself :wall:
I agree with Zains initial post. Either you believe in the bible, all of it, or you do not. The bible should not be some "pick and choose whatever parts you like".
Well this makes a pleasant change, normally I'm the crazy fundamentalist round here.
You should really read some of my discussions with Phillipvs. Firstly, you will see I'm not a liberal Christian; but if you read his points you will also see that fundementalism as we see it with US Evangelicals today is not the 'original Christianity', it's a very modern phenomenon and if you look at the earliest Christians, they never had the Bible (or at least the NT) at all!
Give me a break. I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted.
So not only are you unfamiliar with theology, you also missed the entirety of history?
Why is it so important to you that all religious people be literalist, fundamentalist, whack-jobs? Don't you feel that your brand of secular humanism can stand on its own without gimping everyone else?
Banquo's Ghost
10-21-2009, 07:33
I do not think that the will of God, if there is a God, can be misinterpreted. I mean, God is like the ONLY being I would suppose would make himself perfectly clear on issues.
Actually, if I were said God, I too would make things as confusing as possible. Think about it - if one wanted unquestioning obedience, one could have stopped Creation at rocks. The inclusion of free will (and cats, which were the icing on that philosophical cake) means that one is pretty much obligated to make things conflicting, illogical and downright weird.
Interestingly, this is exactly the direction that most religions based in nature worship and pantheons took. The observable world is capricious and most of the old gods were selfish, lustful and gloriously confusing in their motives. This was pretty much the god of the Old Testament too.
For some reason, the Christian idea was that God had a personal relationship with you, and that he loved you dearly. To me, this is utterly incompatible with observation, so believers are forced into somewhat absurd positions such as determinism and the belief there is both a plan and it's clearly set out in a book.
Bring back Zeus and Loki, I say. Gods don't love you at all - unless, in the former case, you're a hot nymph.
Agent Miles
10-21-2009, 15:47
In the OP, Zain wanted this thread to be about science not belief, so here we go.
Einstein said, “The hardest thing for most people to understand about the whole universe is that the whole universe can be understood. “
The really great thing about science is that once one person figures something out then even a child can be taught about it. Perhaps a child will not understand the most complex science all at once, but fundamental proven ideas can lead to the greater understanding of theories and laws. A skyscraper is built one brick at a time, and that is how knowledge works. Lots of people from all parts of the globe worked against ignorance and mysticism over the many centuries to piece together the knowledge that we take for granted today.
The acid test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
“Uncle” Albert for everyone: http://www.einstein-online.info/en/
The Big Bang Theory for teachers: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/index.html
A minority of the world’s population are Christian. A Minority of the Christian population are Fundamentalists. A minority of the Christian Fundamentalist population actually knows anything about the science that the majority of the world's population is taught.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.