Quote Originally Posted by Zain View Post
The Conservation of Angular Momentum. I'd like to describe this with a very simple explanation.

Say you put some kids on a Merry-Go-Round and get it spinning extremely fast. The ride is spinning clockwise so fast that the kids fly off. For one, this is poor parenting. For two, the kids will spin clockwise in the air before they hit resistance. This will happen every time.

Let's back up a few years...

The Big Bang consists of every atom, every piece of matter in the Universe coming together into a space much smaller than the size of a period on your screen. Then, it began to spin, faster and faster, until it exploded and bam, here we are billions of years later.
You seem to be implying that the universe expanded out from the initial singularity because it was spinning rapidly, which is not what the Big Bang theory suggests. Some cosmological models do suggest a universe with a non-zero total angular momentum and some do not, but in none I have seen is a large initial angular momentum suggested as the main cause of the expansion of the universe, nor an early universe "spinning faster and faster". In any case, we would certainly still expect to see objects with retrograde rotation due to collisions and the like.

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

What about these?"
You're getting into numerology there; if you pick one specific number to be significant, and search through all of nature looking for examples where it appears and discarding ones where it doesn't, you are bound to see a pattern, especially if you are willing to allow a certain amount of wiggle room in how close an example needs to be to count as a "hit". The fact is there are many objects in nature which appear much older than 4000 years, and no-one has yet found a convincing scientific explanation for how this could be consistent with a 4000 year-old universe.

Quote Originally Posted by Centurion1 View Post
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
I would disagree that no-one ever changes their mind; I for one certainly have changed my mind and shifted my position on issues as a result of backroom discussions. I can say from experience that there definitely have been occasions where I have been annoyed that someone could believe something so patently false, perhaps even spammed off some snarky comment in retaliation, only on later reflection to realise "actually, he has a point".

What doesn't generally happen is for someone to simply hold their hands up and say "OK, you're right, I'm wrong, I will accept everything you say uncritically from now on." Unless it's on some very specific or minor factual error, no one likes to admit they have lost, and I for one often struggle to digest every point made in a thread in real time. I don't think it's fair to say a discussion is pointless if it doesn't result in one side immediately convincing the other side that they were completely wrong.