Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Zain]

No you don't understand. I have already told you what I believe, but since you aren't willing to read it, let me make it really embarressingly clear to you:

I BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

I am happy you believe this way. What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?

[Kadagar_AV]

I have my problems with it too hence why I do not see it is a viable theory for the question I have.

The answer I see makes more sense and answers all the questions.

I hate unanswered questions.

It takes a developed human mind to come to terms with the fact that we can not, ever, have all the answers.

For people who does not wish to practise thinking, you have religion. Just insert "god did it" or "it is gods will", or why not "god works in mysterious ways" <- into any topic at all, and you are all set. No need for thinking, you can just go on with your life.

Then there are those, of course, who believe in god AND practises thinking. Those I have the outmost respect for. However, young earth creationists are not part of this crowd.

[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...

[Zain]

It takes a developed human mind to come to terms with the fact that we can not, ever, have all the answers.

For people who does not wish to practise thinking, you have religion. Just insert "god did it" or "it is gods will", or why not "god works in mysterious ways" <- into any topic at all, and you are all set. No need for thinking, you can just go on with your life.

Then there are those, of course, who believe in god AND practises thinking. Those I have the outmost respect for. However, young earth creationists are not part of this crowd.

My argument still stands. Believing in a young earth doesn't make me wrong compared to all the other theories because I believe in the limiting factors on Earth and what they stand for.

[Zain]

I will quote myself so that everyone reads this.

"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?"

[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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am happy you believe this way. What I don't understand is why you don't believe in his word?

His Logos is the message he delivered, not the books people wrote about him.

Go away and read the Bible, or at least go to a Theologian and have them explain it to you.

[Zain]

His Logos is the message he delivered, not the books people wrote about him.

Go away and read the Bible, or at least go to a Theologian and have them explain it to you.

I'd like to think the books people wrote of him depict him well. Since they were in Jesus's time and we are not. They saw miracles and wrote of them. I'm sure seeing Jesus come out of the grave convinced them then and should still be convincing us.

[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

[Zain]

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

Adam begot Cain begot.... That's what they have. No fake Adam. Especially since the geneology dated Earth to 4300 years as well.

The coincidence of the age of the tree is interesting though when it coincides with the other limiting factors I named. Don't you agree?

The deserts must be millions of years old? How could they know that? Plus still the coincidence between the factors is in play here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'd like to think the books people wrote of him depict him well. Since they were in Jesus's time and we are not. They saw miracles and wrote of them. I'm sure seeing Jesus come out of the grave convinced them then and should still be convincing us.

There's no evidence that any of the Evangelists were actually eye witnesses to the events they record. Only Mathew may have been. Mark makes horrific erros of Geography, Luke is just writing Greek Biography and John barely offers an actual narrative (though he is apparently the only one with a working knowledge of pre- AD 60 Jerusalem).

Faith is a wonderful thing, but to hold it direct contravention of sense and reason is to abuse the mind God gave you.

[Zain]

There's no evidence that any of the Evangelists were actually eye witnesses to the events they record. Only Mathew may have been. Mark makes horrific erros of Geography, Luke is just writing Greek Biography and John barely offers an actual narrative (though he is apparently the only one with a working knowledge of pre- AD 60 Jerusalem).

Faith is a wonderful thing, but to hold it direct contravention of sense and reason is to abuse the mind God gave you.

I guess I simply do not see it as a contravention when the answers I have make sense to me.

It goes to say, why fix somethin that aint broke?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess I simply do not see it as a contravention when the answers I have make sense to me.

It goes to say, why fix somethin that aint broke?

Absolute Faith in something repleat with errors is pretty broke, Zain.

[gaelic cowboy]

I am off to check my Facebook now I had a few pints tonight watching the Ireland Montenegro game and its time to go to bed here in Ireland.

I will never convince any believer in god there is no god I can only convince them the laws of physics that I comprehend are real therefore I beg you to leave the bible down and engulf yourself in scientific theory for a while and understand it too.

Finally then one day sit yourself down as I did myself and debate internally the probable existence of a divine creature

If you come to a differant conclusion thats your own lookout

Now where did I leave that playboy

[Zain]

Absolute Faith in something repleat with errors is pretty broke, Zain.

If that's what you think then I can say at least I will die happy. Not wasting my time asking questions I don't understand and don't really care to know. My answer is my salvation.

[Zain]

I am off to check my Facebook now I had a few pints tonight watching the Ireland Montenegro game and its time to go to bed here in Ireland.

I will never convince any believer in god there is no god I can only convince them the laws of physics that I comprehend are real therefore I beg you to leave the bible down and engulf yourself in scientific theory for a while and understand it too.

Finally then one day sit yourself down as I did myself and debate internally the probable existence of a divine creature

If you come to a differant conclusion thats your own lookout

Now where did I leave that playboy

Goodnight GC. May you carry peace in your heart and mind.

[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?

[Tribesman]

Adam begot Cain begot.... That's what they have.

bloody hell
Do you even own a bible ?
have you ever even seen one?

[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.

[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"?

[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.

[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.

[Meneldil]

This is where I have to say Wow. I can't believe in a creator. But you can believe in Man. Sounds fair...

To use your incredibly weird argument:

"Can you see, smell, touch or feel the creator?". I cannot. Not only I can't see him, smell him or touch him, but I can't feel him either. No warm fuzzy feeling inside my chest (as it happens with love), no tear to my eyes, no pain in my neck. No nothing.
Yet, I see man everyday. I see science at work everyday.

Do you believe in internet? Does it contradict your beliefs about religion? Because according to me, internet is pretty much (the result of) science. If you think science requires to believe, and that those beliefs aren't compatible with a belief in god or some religion, then, what are you doing here enjoying your high speed connection, your fridge, your TV, your car and what not? These didn't pop out of nowhere. These haven't been created by god. They've been created by man, whether you like it or not.

I'm not even saying you can't believe in a creator. There are many believers on this forum whom I respect. I have no issues with their beliefs. I find these beliefs weird, out-of-touch with reality, but I can also understand how believing in something is important for some human beings. Now, basing your whole life around a book and blind faith is a completely different story.

How was my first original post not science?

Because you got it all wrong. No offense, but your knowledge about science in general seems quite similar to your knowledge about american history and the Bible: quite poor.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In general, this has been a very respectful and civilised thread discussing a contentious subject.

Very well done all. Please continue.