Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sorry, I cannot resist either...

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.

[Zain]

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

The theory does not care because it's incomplete. How sad that it's become such an epidemic as the "Creation of the Universe"

[Zain]

Sorry, I cannot resist either...

I am however surprised anyone even bothered to debate on this thread. I am posting now, but you will not see me debate. This is the very definition of futility. Religious is the antipodal anathema of science, as Dawkins put it, no matter what they say.

And I believe that Science is something I should be able to test and observe. Big Bang is not science.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Zain]

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.

I hate unanswered questions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Zain]

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

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

I hate unanswered questions.

Do you ever fear then that it should be Bhaal or Thor or possibly Dagda you should really be believing what if Crom Cruach is the one true god are we all doomed?????

[Centurion1]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite possibly John was a fisherman before or after he was a disciple of John the baptist? I haven't checked because I have been busy here on this thread.

No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.

The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?

The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.

As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.

As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".

You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.

[Zain]

Do you ever fear then that it should be Bhaal or Thor or possibly Dagda you should really be believing what if Crom Cruach is the one true god are we all doomed?????

I do not see the evidence of Thor or Bhaal. Everything is explained in God's word. I feel that he has control of my life and has transformed my life. It's a faith thing as well but I gladly accept that for the love I feel.

[gaelic cowboy]

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

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

[Meneldil]

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.

[Zain]

No, read the passages. PETER is a fisherman when Jesus meets him in Mathew and a disciple in John.

The origin of the Bible matters. It's something I truly need to research. But the lack of religion has no instructions, how do you know you believe correctly without it?[/QUOTE]

The fact that you ask this shows that you have not read the Bible and know very little about the religion you claim to follow. Correct belief is not that relevant to Christianity, when compared to sincere love of God and genuine contrition for sins.

As far as your adherence to the "WORD" goes, the actual word used in the Greek is Logos which means argument or meaning. The confusion came in because the King James follows the doctrinal line of the Latin vulgate which translated it "Verbum", which is speaking.

As my former housemate, who has completed her Master's Degree in Applied Translation said, "all translation is betrayal".

You want to read the Bible? Learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. It won't be any better in those languages.[/QUOTE]

You trash my bible, I understand and do not judge you. But i'd to know, what do you believe and how did you come about believing it as truth? Was it a book? Or your own mind? Or someone elses mind? My following puts myself under a God. Atheism says "I am my own God. I decide right from wrong."

Do you think you know everything? Maybe half of everything? Let's say you know half of everything there is to know. Do you think my God could be in the other half you don't know?

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Zain]

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...

[Zain]

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.

[Zain]

We don't have any of his words though, unless you've been talking to him yourself.

It's called prayer. I do talk to him and I feel him. You might think I'm crazy, but you can't understand it unless you experience it.

[gaelic cowboy]

I asked for proof not belief Trollness confirmed beyond all doubt as has already been stated if you want we can go back to proving the laws of Thermo in our universe otherwise i think i will just start looking at some porn on Redtube

[Aemilius Paulus]

And I believe that Science is something I should be able to test and observe. Big Bang is not science.

You are partially correct. We cannot observe our creation. But you know nothing of Big Bang, and neither do I. Neither does anyone here for that matter. Big Bang is far too complex for us to understand. It is not as simple as "you get everything out of nothing". However, simply because something is too complicated for you, too difficult to understand does not mean you should go to the simple, elegant, reassuring fairy tales of religion.

Honestly, the Biblical creation is not much different from all the other creation myths in the world. Yet Christians scoff and utterly disrespect the beliefs of say, those African villagers for believing in the same material, albeit minor aesthetic changes. How one can believe in such primal, obscenely improbable and simplistic tales of literal Christian creation is beyond my understanding...

Here is a site you would love, Zain - http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Pretty impressive I say, despite it shamelessly making mockery of science and rampant with anti-intellectualist remarks... I mean, really, the anti-intellectualist snipes they make are so obvious and false that most sixth graders could explain why they are incorrect. Their favourite method of argumentation is "if the scientists are so smart, how come ..." or other equally infantile, primary-school type arguments. Ugh. There is no appeals to logic or real attempt

Whenever I need to get angry I simply browse their collection of absurd and preposterous cartoons, the multitude of which suggests the primary method of transfer of information from the site to its readers...

[Zain]

I asked for proof not belief Trollness confirmed beyond all doubt as has already been stated if you want we can go back to proving the laws of Thermo in our universe otherwise i think i will just start looking at some porn on Redtube

I believe I proved it when I said the universe should go from order to disorder. It seems evolution back the opposite theory. What are your thoughts on this?

[Zain]

You are partially correct. We cannot observe our creation. But you know nothing of Big Bang, and neither do I. Neither does anyone here for that matter. Big Bang is far too complex for us to understand. It is not as simple as "you get everything out of nothing". However, simply because somethign is too complicated for you, too difficult to understand does not mean you should go to the simple, elegant, reassuring fairy tales of religion.

Honestly, the Biblical creation is not much different from all the other creation myths in the world. Yet Christians scoff and utterly disrespect the beliefs of say, those African villagers for believing in the same material, albeit minor aesthetic changes. How one can believe in such primal, obscenely improbable and simplistic tales of literal Christian creation is beyond my understanding...

Here is a site you would love, Zain - http://www.answersingenesis.org/. Pretty impressive I say, despite it shamelessly making mockery of science and rampant with anti-intellectualist remarks... I mean, really, the anti-intellectualist snipes they make are so obvious and false that most sixth graders could explain why they are incorrect. Their favourite method of argumentation is "if the scientists are so smart, how come ..." or other equally infantile, primary-school type arguments. Ugh. There is no appeals to logic or real attempt

Whenever I need to get angry I simply browse their collection of absurd and preposterous cartoons, the multitude of which suggests the primary method of transfer of information from the site to its readers...

If you cannot prove that Big Bang is true then how is it less Fairy Tale than religion? I just don't see how they are much different. Do you agree?

[Aemilius Paulus]

I can't believe in a creator. But you can believe in Man. Sounds fair...

See, that is my main problem with arguments creationists make. They are always snatching things out of context and making such silly comparisons for obvious purposes. Rarely will you see a creationist pull together a halfway-decent attempt at justifying their position with (mock) science. But at least they are trying to use science

[Zain]

See, that is my main problem with arguments creationists make. They are always snatching things out of context and making such silly comparisons for obvious purposes. Rarely will you see a creatinst pull together a halfway-decent attempt at justifying their position with (mock) science. But at least theya re trying to use science

How was my first original post not science?

I was simply making a point with that last post. Saying my God is false because somebody says so isn't fair to me.

[gaelic cowboy]

I believe I proved it when I said the universe should go from order to disorder. It seems evolution back the opposite theory. What are your thoughts on this?

Our disorder is proved is by the fact we are made from atoms the more movement for want of a better word the more energy is in the system hence the more space needed for the universe.

If we approach absolute zero the disorder will reduce in the atoms and eventually stop. This may happen one day and fullfill your biblical theory

We cannot prove it stops because that would require input of energy to the system therefore your asking me to prove something I cannot prove

[Zain]

Our disorder is proved is by the fact we are made from atoms the more movement for want of a better word the more energy is in the system hence the more space needed for the universe.

If we approach absolute zero the disorder will reduce in the atoms and eventually stop. This may happen one day and fullfill your biblical theory

We cannot prove it stops because that would require input of energy to the system therefore your asking me to prove something I cannot prove

Taken and understood

[Aemilius Paulus]

If you cannot prove that Big Bang is true then how is it less Fairy Tale than religion? I just don't see how they are much different. Do you agree?

I do agree if you were correct. The problem is that I tend to have a negative perception about Young Earth Creationist Christians in the sense that I (perhaps wrongfully) view their beliefs as safe alternative to the tedious and difficult thinking they have to do when they believe in science. Basically I am saying Creationism is the stupid man's science. Please tell me how I am not correct.

The scientists know their models, and we do not. They can explain Big Bang, and so far all of them have some sort of general consensus that this is it, give or take (many) errors - but nevertheless they can tell it was Big Bang and not something else. Now, the scientists are notorious for disagreeing, and this is no conspiracy that most of them agree on the basics of Big Bang. Look, once again, the scientists are not in a conspiracy. Scientists would gladly accept creationism if they had the same evidence for it as for their other theories. I take their consensus as a good sign.

And before you you lambaste me for believing in crap I do not understand, I challenge you to decipher the Bible for me. Face it, both are difficult to understand, and Bible more so, because it can be interpreted in any manner imaginable. Why do you think our cultural religion has changed so fundamentally since its inception? The difference is that science become cleared and cleared, while religion remain cut in stone.

In any case, praise your god you are not a Muslim. Qur'an is often cited as the most impossible to read non-amateur (hehe, and the irony is that Mohammed supposedly wrote it - which Mohammed cited as his only miracle in this world - the bloke had humour ) book in the world...

Do not believe in modern science - believe in the same sort of creation tales that men have been telling since the Late Neolithic! See, I would actually respect Creation "science" a great deal more if they at least offered somethign new. However, that is not so. All the other stories are largely the same. And no, the Neolithic men were not exactly what I would call experts in science...

Also, if you try to say that the shared myths are due to our common ancestry I will have to point out that regardless of where we came from, it was not the Eden, which is explicitly stated as being in the Middle East IIRC. Men did not radiate from there - the radiocarbon dating has a margin of error, but it has decreased with the last and only major revision. We can now tell where people came and when. No, people did not populate the Earth in 6,000 years. Countless artefacts are much more ancient than that.

I'll be - I am in the argument...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You trash my bible, I understand and do not judge you. But i'd to know, what do you believe and how did you come about believing it as truth? Was it a book? Or your own mind? Or someone elses mind? My following puts myself under a God. Atheism says "I am my own God. I decide right from wrong."

Do you think you know everything? Maybe half of everything? Let's say you know half of everything there is to know. Do you think my God could be in the other half you don't know?

No you don't understand. I have already told you what I believe, but since you aren't willing to read it, let me make it really embarressingly clear to you:

I BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

[Zain]

I do agree if you were correct. The problem is that I tend to have a negative perception about Young Earth Creationist Christians in the sense that I perhaps wrongfully view their beliefs as safe alternative to the tedious and difficult thinking they have to do when they believe in science.

Do not believe in modern science - believe in the same sort of creation tales that men have been telling since the Late Neolithic! See, I would actually respect Creation "science" a great deal more if they at least offered somethign new. However, that is not so. All the other stories are largely the same. And no, the Neolithic men were not exactly what I would call experts in science...

Also, if you try to say that the shared myths are due to our common ancestry I will have to point out that regardless of where we came from, it was not the Eden, which is explicitly stated as being in the Middle East IIRC. Men did not radiate from there - the radiocarbon dating has a margin of error, but it has decreased with the last and only major revision. We can now tell where people came and when. No, people did not populate the Earth in 6,000 years. Countless artefacts are much more ancient than that.

Well then let's talk about dating the Earth again. I must go offline after the post.

A pirate ship is found with a treasure chest. The coins read dates between 1750 and 1800. So is it true to say this ship was shipwrecked before 1800? No because of 1800 being the limiting factor.

Radiocarbon dating may say millions of years even. But what about others?

Oldest tree? 4300
Oldest desert? 4200
Oldest coral reef? 4200
Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?
Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?
Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.
Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.
The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.
The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.

What about these?