Conservation of Angular Momentum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The Earth is not a closed system.

---

I believe Zain meant the universe was a closed system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

BTW, Zain - oldest living thing on earth - a creosote bush of about 11,700 years. You can also Google it to find numerous results stating the same thing, just to check the validity of this.

only god has the power to lock this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

BTW, Zain - oldest living thing on earth - a creosote bush of about 11,700 years. 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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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?"

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.