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]

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]

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Tribesman]

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.

How can someone do an interpretation of the bible when it appears they havn't even read one?

[Samurai Waki]

Zain, if you want to discuss matters of theology relating to science, I think perhaps you should study a bit on Einstein, I bet you'd be surprised how considerate he is to both sides of the argument.

Since you're not interested in discussing the (now) testable theories on The Big Bang ref: Large Hadron Collider. I believe you have absolutely zero desire to stray from the dogma that has been stitched into you, and you know that's fine, but it doesn't go against God to consider science, since there isn't a single verse within the any edition of the bible, that actually discusses science in detail, so it should be considered "open ground".

But, you're not going to be prove me wrong, so it feels like a waste even writing this.

[Strike For The South]

Zain I'm am throughly glad you're sticking to your guns. But I propose this question to you: Does it really matter what mere men say?

For me my faith and my learning have always been seperate and my faith works on a different plane than all my other learning. When I learn about evolution it doesn't bother me becuase I don't think it matters to my faith.

I am certianly not perfect but my faith has been swayed more by the actions of people than the actions of science.

[drone]

"Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one." - Capt. Willard

The first post had several misconceptions about the laws of thermodynamics, the theories of the big bang and evolution, and the overall concept of the scientific method. If the theories contradicted the laws of thermodynamics, some scientist would have brought this up and debunked the theory. This is how science works. Everything is there to be questioned and scrutinized.

More disturbing is the fact that Zain puts quite a lot of stock in the Bible, and yet does not have a basic understanding of the history of the separate books or of the canon as a whole. If something was this important to me, I would prefer to have a little more knowledge about how that item came into being. I would definitely want to educate myself on it before trying to use it to debunk something in a completely different field of knowledge. Even Navaros would be appalled at this attempt.

If you take a literal interpretation of the Bible as fact, your brain has reached heat death. There are many ways God can fit into scientific theories and laws for the faithful. The big bang theorizes on the expansion of the universe, but not the nature of the singularity. Why can't the singularity be God? He is everywhere, after all. "Let there be light": I'm sure there was plenty of light after the Planck epoch. Why can't the gravitation constant or speed of light be part of the framework God set aside for the operation of the world? Why can't human and animal evolution be part of a long process covered in the fifth and sixth "days"?

[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]

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]

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...

[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?

[Aemilius Paulus]

BTW, I edited my previous post significantly - check it.

EDIT: Oh well, I will repost it:

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...

[gaelic cowboy]

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?

I take issue with the assertion on earth should be flatter now that is wrong the erroded material will still be here its just been moved somewhere else thats how errosion works hence we have errosion and we have deposition

Sorry for all the wiki stuff its just easier to find

[Aemilius Paulus]

[QUOTE=Zain;2354571]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?

Wrong, not unless someone up very badly. Plus, radiocarbon is only accurate for 60,000 years.

Oldest tree? 4300

Wrong, 5,000, and if you look at the clonal colonies, some are anywhere between 100,000 and a million years old.

Oldest desert? 4200

WTH? How do you date that? WHY would you date that? That is not supposed be measured. That is like saying - alright, this field is 5,000 years old.

Oldest coral reef? 4200

Wrong, some are at least 150,000 years old. If you count the dead ones, it will be even more ancient...

Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?

Wrong. Very silly too. Everything we know of in the universe but matter and energy itself is created, lingers on for some time, and then is destroyed only to make way for new cycle. We already know of planets, suns, black holes, asteroids, nebulae, etc, etc which are being both currently destroyed and generated. Saying we would run out of comets is like saying we would run out of water on earth just because it evaporates. Of course it evaporates, but it also comes back. So do comets. We have not see the Oort cloud, but there is no reason why it cannot exist. After all, if everything else is renewed in this Universe, why cannot comets do the same, especially since they are so comparatively simple compared to the formation of suns or planets.

Niagra falls crawls back 4.7 feet per year. Why isn't it back to Lake Erie by now?

Wrong. It will be. Everything is in motion on this planet. Ten million years ago there was no Erie, nor anything similar there. Everything is constantly changing. Erosion will shape the current landscape.

Erosion would cause the Earth to be flat in millions of years.

Good Lord, have you not studied geology at all, or did you flunk it :P? I will not even bother to explain this one..

Oldest writing systems around 5000 years old.

Sumerians are older than the Creationist Young Earth. Explain that. Plus, the last scientific source that was actually modern and revolutionaryin its time that the creationists listened to was James Usshers reckoning that Creation was on 23rd of October, 4004 BC. That was in 1648, when men believed in witches, body humours, and such rubbish. Not exactly cutting-edge science, eh?

The Chinese year was around 4700 at our 2000.

Eh? Sorry, please elaborate.

The Saxons had a recorded geneology back to Adam.

Do I have to list all the manure Saxons believed? You trust the Saxons but you do not trust Stephen Hawking? Please...

What about these?

Good question: what about?

[Viking]

Comets? Lifespan 10000 years. Why are there still comets?

Astronomers believe that comets are leftover debris from a collection of gas, ice, rocks, and dust that formed the outer planets about 4.6 billion years ago.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html


As for the rest of your list; there are no problems with old objects lacking. You can find examples of older tree fossils, animals, deserts etc.; basically whatever you want to if you just bother.