Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Zain]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Tribesman]

You do not support your theories but only attack mine and my arguments.

Are you unable to defend your theories from simple questions.
Or is it simply that you cut and pasted an article and don't actually understand the theories you are putting forward yourself.

you have no room in this thread.

Thats debateable , though it could seem that someone who knows very little of science and very very little of scripture really doesn't belong in this topic.

You do know that gluttony is a sin and being a glutton for punishment upsets god.
This defiance of the order of reason is unchristian, John of the cross speaks clearly against spiritual gluttony you indulge in.

OK philipvs , you can take Zain for his much needed lessons on scripture, I really can't be bothered.

[Zain]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

Thats fine.
So when you write

So you propose there are errors in my bible?

it raises the real question of you having any real knowledge at all of the books which you claim are the truth and which you are basing your arguements on.
Combining that lack of knowledge of scripture with a seeming lack of knowledge about the basics of the sciences you wish to dispute does not make for a good proposal for wanting to learn especially when you start off by claiming you already know the truth of the issue as it is in a book which you demonstrate you don't understand.

[Zain]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

Science requires belief in neither the big bang nor evolution. Science has been around much longer than either theory, and may replace either or both in the future. I don't know where you got that idea. Science does require belief in a few very fundamental, unprovable concepts: that our sensory input is an accurate source of information about the world, that cause and effect exists, that the (for lack of a better word) laws of the universe are the same regardless of time and place, and so forth. Of course, good luck managing life in general, let alone science, without those beliefs.

My Order to Disorder argument was directed towards Evolution, who claims life came from nothing. That seems backwards to me and I'm sure many people would agree to that fact.

. . .

Entropy - (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.

The Earth is not a closed system.

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew. I take the King James as the word of God and do not entirely trust the other translations.

The original manuscripts of the bible are not now available for study and translation, nor were they when the KJV was created. For that matter, much of the bible was not originally written in Hebrew. The KJV relied heavily on earlier English translations, such as Tyndale's, which in turn relied heavily on the Latin vulgate, which in turn relied heavily (IIRC) on the Septuagint for its old testament text and which was translated from manuscripts which had already been through numerous transcriptions. As I understand it, some recent translations have had access to older manuscripts than the KJV, so trusting KJV over other translations makes no sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The original manuscripts of the bible are not now available for study and translation, nor were they when the KJV was created. For that matter, much of the bible was not originally written in Hebrew. The KJV relied heavily on earlier English translations, such as Tyndale's, which in turn relied heavily on the Latin vulgate, which in turn relied heavily (IIRC) on the Septuagint for its old testament text and which was translated from manuscripts which had already been through numerous transcriptions. As I understand it, some recent translations have had access to older manuscripts than the KJV, so trusting KJV over other translations makes no sense.

Correct except for one point. Jerome did learn Hebrew eventually, and the majoriety of the Vulgate Old Testemant was directly translated with reference to Jewish tradition rather than Greek.

I can think of some really good reasons to be unconvinced by evolution or the Big Bang, but thus far I think they're as close as we've got and the Bible has nothing to do with it either way.

[ajaxfetish]

Correct except for one point. Jerome did learn Hebrew eventually, and the majoriety of the Vulgate Old Testemant was directly translated with reference to Jewish tradition rather than Greek.

Thank you. I was unsure on that point.

I believe Zain meant the universe was a closed system.

But he was using entropy to argue against evolution. All the evidence for evolution is on Earth, which is not a closed system, and which therefore we should not expect to be increasing in entropy. Thus, it's a fundamentally flawed argument.

Ajax

[gaelic cowboy]

The Earth is not a closed system.

I believe Zain meant the universe was a closed system.