Conservation of Angular Momentum

[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

[Zain]

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

Okay, that was pure observation. But what of the other 8 Limiting Factors I named?

[gaelic cowboy]

Okay, that was pure observation. But what of the other 8 Limiting Factors I named?

The Saxons were converted by celtic missionary priests they believd in other gods before that and therefore believed in a differant Adam therefore they had wrote for them by these priests a new belief system and creation story in the old saxon tongue.

trees are only around in the last few million years any film that shows grass and dinosaus is wrong since most plants can only live at most a few hundred years it does not surprise me at all that the oldest tree is that old

There is proof of deserts in Ireland that no longer exist they must be hundreds of millions of years old

[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?

[Zain]

[QUOTE=Aemilius Paulus;2354615]

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.


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


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


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.


Wrong, some are at least 150,000 years old. If you count the dead ones...

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.

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.

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

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?

Eh? Sorry, please elaborate.

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


Good question: what about?

Alright then, when I throw fact you throw another "fact". I grow tired and hungry. We shall talk another time.

[Pannonian]

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

Tectonic plates are what you serve communion wafers on.

[KukriKhan]

Tectonic plates are what you serve communion wafers on.

El-oh-freekin-el.

Our young Zain, way back in his #39 post actually nailed it:

Are you a believer? If you are, then believing in Evolution is a contradiction because death before sin by Adam never happened.

If you're not, then I respect your opinion. Although if a designer made a perfect being there would be no need for faith because we would be our own God. We wouldn't need him if we were perfect.

My bolding.

You are perfect. I am perfect. He is perfect. We are perfect. They are perfect.

I am who am.

All is perfect.

Or not. In which case one is a christian. Or something else.

[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.