Conservation of Angular Momentum

[Rhyfelwyr]

In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old? At least, that's what Bishop Usshers calculations put it at, and I thought that was largely accepted today?

Not that I believe either, but I don't think I've heard of a 4,000 year earth theory before.

[Tribesman]

In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old?

You have to take into consideration the flood, nearly everything died in the flood which means worldwide you have to start from scratch from the time noah got the boat unloaded.
Though that doesn't factor in that the animals would have died once they got off the boat as everything was cleansed so there was nothing for them to eat, then again with god magic the boat was not only big enough to hold all the animals and their years food it was big enough to hold two years food
Now some people might say that as the dimensions are given the size is fixed which proves that it cannot be true.
But as it is in the bible then it must be true and as the dimensions are there then it is scientificalasticy true as they wouldn't put in numbers if they didn't work.

The answer is simple. The ark was a tardis and noah came from a little village called gallifrey which was by what later became the sea of gallilee

This still leaves problems with motion, not like the problems of motion associated with "dad dancing" to spin me round like a record but other motions.
to scientificalicalculy explore these motions we need to look at the plank theory.
For this theory we will need some double sided sticky tape, a pen, a ruler, a pair of sharp scissors(adult supervision required) and some glitter.
oh and of course a piece of timber (not gopher wood please)as we cannot do the plank theory without a plank
ooops nearly forgot , as this is a complicated question we also need a chicken and an egg.

So then children, gather your materials and the fun experiment in the wonders of science will continue shortly.
one last thing , please boil the egg before you put it in the chicken or the lesson will get very messy right at the start.

[Beskar]

The answer is simple. The ark was a tardis and noah came from a little village called gallifrey which was by what later became the sea of gallilee.

[Aemilius Paulus]

In Young Earth Creationism isn't the earth supposed to be 6,000 and not 4,000 years old? At least, that's what Bishop Usshers calculations put it at, and I thought that was largely accepted today?

Not that I believe either, but I don't think I've heard of a 4,000 year earth theory before.

Yes, it is 6.000 years, and the only reason why people confuse it with 4.000 is because universe was supposedly created in 4004 BCE.

[Subotan]

Referring to the original point, surely the fact that a minority of heavenly bodies are spinning as opposed to what is predicted is evidence of the chaotic nature of the universe and the role of random chance in it. It would look far more suspicious that the universe had been designed if all planets/stars/moons/asteroids etc. behaved exactly the same way.

[Kadagar_AV]

Referring to the original point, surely the fact that a minority of heavenly bodies are spinning as opposed to what is predicted is evidence of the chaotic nature of the universe and the role of random chance in it. It would look far more suspicious that the universe had been designed if all planets/stars/moons/asteroids etc. behaved exactly the same way.

NO!!! Be silent... This is way too much fun to have logic have a say!

After all, there is only one god and he is the one who has made all of this happen.

Stop thinking and fall in line with the other... hmmmm... I am not sure how to put this. "Childs left beind?"

[Tribesman]

Right then.
I hope you all have your eggs now children , if you were very clever you will have noticed that the boiled egg you now have reacts in a different to an unboiled egg when you spin it. This is due to the heat killing the salmonella that would keep moving in an unboiled egg because if the salmonella is alive and it would get dizzy when it spins and have trouble balancing afterwards.
Please take your egg and put it in the chicken, do not worry about the protests of the chicken as the egg is the same size as when it came out so it must be able to go back into the gap where it came out as otherwise that would mean something has either appeared out of nothing or disappeared into nothing which cannot happen.
Now comes the hard part.
Take your plank, fix it to a brick wall using the tape, this is neccesary because wood is lighter than a brick wall and it could float away.
Though some say that if you put the wood against the wall but ensured it was closer to the center of the earth than the wall centrifugal force would keep it pressed against the wall without sticky tape.
This centrifugal force is false as the earth doesn't spin but remains fixed beneath its dome as it is written.

Using your ruler mark the centre of the plank with your pencil as an aiming point.
Now the fun. Take your chicken by the legs and spin it round clockwise really fast, really really fast like you are a bad parent and it is your child on a carousel ....release the spinning chicken at your aiming point.
View the results . if your chicken (or its pieces) are no longer spinning you have proved that momentum can be stopped. If doubt remains get another chicken and try again but spin anti-clockwise.

At this stage you should have some nice moist chicken residue on the wall and plank. consider this as a representation of a portion the moist bowl created by the maker to cover the earth.
Take your glitter and scatter it over the residue.
Doesn't it look just like the lights the creator placed in the bowl.

Ah finally, the sharp scissors. these can be used as a demonstration about the survival of the fittest. take the scissors and push them firmly up you nasal passage to see if you can find a anything in the neurocranium.

[Lemur]

I have to hand it to you, Zain, you've taken some zingers in this thread and kept your cool. That deserves some measure of respect.

As for your contention that the Big Bang is as much an item of faith as any theology, like the other posters I think you missed the bus. Nobody sat up one morning and dreamed up the Big Bang out of whole cloth. As Crazed Rabbit so kindly pointed out, there was unexplained evidence, and a whole lot of smart people tried to get a handle on it, which eventually led to several competing theories of which the Big Bang was but one. That's how science is supposed to work.

As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of nature seems like one of the most genuine forms of worship.

To quote one of my favorite poets:

Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; [...]

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.

[Zain]

I have to hand it to you, Zain, you've taken some zingers in this thread and kept your cool. That deserves some measure of respect.

As for your contention that the Big Bang is as much an item of faith as any theology, like the other posters I think you missed the bus. Nobody sat up one morning and dreamed up the Big Bang out of whole cloth. As Crazed Rabbit so kindly pointed out, there was unexplained evidence, and a whole lot of smart people tried to get a handle on it, which eventually led to several competing theories of which the Big Bang was but one. That's how science is supposed to work.

As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of nature seems like one of the most genuine forms of worship.

To quote one of my favorite poets:

Glory be to God for dappled things—
For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; [...]

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.

I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.

Once again, thank you all.

[Pannonian]

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.

I'd like to thank everyone who has responded, even Tribesman for replying and speaking with me on this account. My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

"Could" being my key word, for I have not made up my mind. But this man has lived 65 years on this Earth and has spend 45 years of those as a Christian. I trust his word.

Does he have a BSc in Christianity?

[Sigurd]

I spoke with a mentor of mine, a strong Christian follower. Devotes his life to it. And he explains that science can't be completely wrong. He believes in a God induced Big Bang. Thus I have taken that idea into much consideration.
...
My understanding of science and religion has grown exponentially and thus I have decided that believing in both my modern man's view of creation as well as the way of the biblical creation could actually correspond.

I'll tell you what Zain, In every denomination of Christianity there are principles that saves and there are principles that don't. I don't know which you follow, but common for most of them is the saving principle of faith in the Lord Jesus. There are some other common principles and required ordinances like baptism and following Christ's example of being an philanthropist.

It shouldn't matter if you believe the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years or 6 periods of billions of years. It is not a saving principle. Likewise Evolution, The Flood and the Big Bang. They are not saving principles and thus not worth your time. You can engage in discussions concerning these matters, but your faith doesn't stand or fall with e.g. Evolution. Perhaps God used evolution to develop humanity or he didn't - It shouldn't matter as you and the Christian world's salvation does not depend on this theory/scientific fact being a universal truth.

IMO there should be one faith - the faith that saves. The Christian world should shed the bickering and petty disagreements that has led to a diversity of 35 000 different Christian denominations and unite under one Christ.
They should tolerate the small differences in doctrinal beliefs - which in the Big picture does not matter anyway.

my 2 Agnostic cents.

[Vladimir]

As for your notion that there is a disconnect between being a Christian and following science, I just don't see it. The infinite complexity and elegance of the universe is, if anything, a testament to the Almighty. Why should we deny it, and so doing, attempt to drag the Creator down to our level? If God is infinite and omnipotent, then by definition our conception of Him must be imperfect and incomplete. Using the tools God gave us to understand the fractal vastness of

Hey look everybody. I found common ground with Lemur!

That's good because I was about to send you to Madagascar.

[Papewaio]

Ah finally, the sharp scissors. these can be used as a demonstration about the survival of the fittest. take the scissors and push them firmly up you nasal passage to see if you can find a anything in the neurocranium.

Hang on we are debating Christian based creationism not ancient Egyptian...