Conservation of Angular Momentum

**Tribesman** · 10-14-2009, 23:34

tribes that "article" is not in accepted scientific format. h obviously wrote it himself. as drone has pointed out there are mistakes in the post.

That could be said of just about any "scientific" paper published by hovinds or many 'creation scientists.'

**Zain** · 10-14-2009, 23:37

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.

**Tribesman** · 10-14-2009, 23:43

The King James was translated from the original Hebrew.

OMG

I really don't believe it

How on earth could anyone?????

bloody hell

OK I have to leave this topic.

creationists

**Zain** · 10-14-2009, 23:45

Originally Posted by Tribesman

OMG

I really don't believe it

How on earth could anyone?????

bloody hell

OK I have to leave this topic.

creationists

Then please leave if you do not wish to lend information instead of scrutinize.

**Aemilius Paulus** · 10-14-2009, 23:48

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** · 10-14-2009, 23:49

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Crazed Rabbit** · 10-14-2009, 23:55

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

**Zain** · 10-14-2009, 23:56

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

**Crazed Rabbit** · 10-15-2009, 01:28

Originally Posted by Zain

How can I test to see if the Big Bang is true? I would definitely enjoy some incite from you CR

Check out the observational evidence section from wiki.

What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?

Just because a person doesn't believe in your interpretation of the Bible doesn't mean they don't believe in the word of God.

CR

**Aemilius Paulus** · 10-15-2009, 00:13

Originally Posted by Zain

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** · 10-15-2009, 00:17

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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** · 10-15-2009, 00:26

Originally Posted by Zain

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...