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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

Thank you, I am up for discussion. NOT debate. :bow:

---

What's the difference? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

: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.....

Quote:

---

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"

Quote:

---

But belief in itself is a must in science, because Big Bang and Evolution must be believed in.

---

start at lesson 1 in science.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I see Tribesman has now posted, so 60 posts may be generous. ~;)

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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?

^ 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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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

Quote:

---

I want to learn and speak to others of their beliefs and observations.

---

Thats fine.
So when you write

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

^ 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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. [billhicks]Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]

I'll let PVC ruin your perception of the perfect Bible, he knows way more about it than I. Out b4 teh lock...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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. [billhicks]Fossils? My god is a prankster god![\billhicks]

I'll let 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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?

Quote:

---

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.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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?????

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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.

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:

---

yes it is futile but for a while we were trying to explain how the universe was in line with the laws of Thermo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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 is not proof the ancient celtic gods are the one true gods you cant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zain

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

So where is the evidence of Yahweh.

If Dagda is not real prove that the grave at Newgrange 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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