Abracadabra, you are wrong on this. Feral is right, the Law Of Conservation of Angular Momentum requires that an object which is spining in one direction remains spining in that same direction unless acted upon by an outside force. You were correct to refute her statement, but your refutation had nothing to do with reality.



Physics DOES say just that. The refutation you were looking for is this: "Planets and moons with counter rotation are the product of astrological collisions, the torque from the collision changes the rotation of the astral body." That answer is perfectly logical and scientific for planets and moons, but there is no answer for counter rotation galaxies, which couldn't be effected by an outside force unless the force was nearly Galaxy sized and we observe no such objects.

If you knew anything about physics you’d know that this doesn’t apply to the constituents of an object. The law of conservation of momentum only applies to the macro object under consideration.

Even in tiny explosion we see the individual parts within the explosion take on all sorts of differnet motions and momentums. The only requirement of the Law of Conservation of Momentum is that the sum of all of those individual momentums equals the total momentum of the object.

So I’m not wrong. You people take the most basic laws of physics and try to extrapolate them to extremely complex situations without any knowledge of what you are doing. This is a very common mistake of laymen. Arm them with a little knowledge of physics and they are dangerous.

The physics of the universe in not in any way in conflict with the laws of physics as we know them. If it was in conflict physicists would be the first to point these things out.

Scientists are not in cahoots to pull the wool over the masses with a specific agenda. On the contrary, it's every individual scientist’s dream to find inconsistencies. To do so leads to fame and fortunate.

You’re idea that all planets must spin in the same direction because of the law of conservation of angular momentum simply doesn’t hold water. The individual parts that make up the universe are perfectly capable of bumping into each other and changing each other’s momentum. The total momentum is still conserved.

Once again, you’re just displaying a misunderstanding of the laws of physics.

Moreover, when the universe was very tiny the laws of quantum randomness were in play, and in that situation the law of conservation of momentum is not valid anyway. But we don’t even need to call upon quantum randomness in this example. Even the macro laws of classical physics allow for what we observe.

Religious people would do well to stick to religious topics and quit trying to become self-educated scientists.

According to the theory, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. The object that is believed to have been the source of the Big Bang was supposedly spinning in one direction very fast. Therefore as that object expanded, it would have continued to spin in the same direction. Conservation of Angular Momentum would have ensured that all objects created from the original object would be spinning in the same direction. Why is it that the uneducated Christian (me) knows that and you don't?



I just said that in my last post...the one you are supposedly replying to. If you read my posts, we won't have to cover the same ground over and over again.



No, I'm afraid you are just proving that you don't read the posts of people with whom you disagree. Your glance at the post and look for one or two items with which you will disagree.



You first?

Abra,

Good catch.

It does little to support the claims of evolutionism, but does reflect the differences in the debate and address the qualifying capacity of each adherent's responsibility and expertise within this debate.

A difference does appear as to whether or not God is the god of creation or creation is god or the Creator is God. That definition is best left to the Creationist position to define for the purposes of this debate.

I put forth that the Creator is God.

I further hold that He Has engendered principles upon creation that may be qualified by creation as only an observation of His handiwork and that the evolutionist doctrines are misrepresentaions of those same interpretations of creation that have become misconstrued in a defiant and ill-fated attempt to defy truth itself.

It would not surprise me, however, if my observation is unpalatible to many. Nonetheless, any challenges to my observation would be a clear denial of the existence of an intelligent Creator that communicates through nature, don't you think?

Bible inerrancy for a fundie, could be summed-up as '... One's personnal interpretation of the 'WORD' of a single book as THE ONLY, AND ABSOLUTE TRUTH'.

That is all there is to know about 'fundamentalists' of all persuasions.

For fundies, everything MUST agree with their personnal and individual interpretation of the 'word' of the 'book'. What doesn't agree with the book, is conveniently declared a lie by fundies, and those whom suscribe to the lie, are nothing other than modern day 'heretics'!!!

There is no debate to be had here. They are 100% doubtless about their delusion. To them, it is not a delusion, it is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Their view is RIGHT, any contradicting view according to them is WRONG, and it must be denounced and corrected.

It matters less what topic they bring up or show-up in, the only point being uconditionally shoved, is that the bible is right, and contradicting view is wrong, period!!!

Do people on this forum: 'religion chat', consider that this attitude is appropriate, and conducive to objective and fruitful 'open minded' exchanges between all, regardless of respective religious or non-religious perspectives?!?!?

If you were to rename the forum, 'bible inerrancy' certified forum: only for those whom believe in the 'word for word' absolute truth of the bible, WOULD YOU NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE FORUM WAS RESERVED FOR A SPECIAL SECT OF RELIGIOUS 'QUACKIES', AND STAY OUT OF THERE?!?!?

Any concepts or ideas that are perceived as contradictions of their interpretation of the 'word', are going to be systematically 'corrected' according to their view of the bible, or ridiculed with every possible sort of primitive and unfounded circular logic.

Fundamentalism is not conducive to healthy and productive exchanges in a democratic society. Neither is it the kind of attitude that is appropriate to a 'free and open minded' public forum, meant to welcome all general religious opinions and perspectives, free of the fascist domination of a particular cultish view or other.

There is only one way of of interacting with a 'fundie': ask him/her what presupposition they subscribe to. If they tell, you, and you agree with the presuppositon, be prepared to shut-up, and listen to their pontifating circular rhetoric. It is their only purpose.

If you care, help detoxify fundamentalists. Take one under your wing, and toughlove him/her back to his/her senses.

Don't forget to remind them that it just the nonsense you are going to do violence to, and not their relationship with God.

Where did you get this information. I know most of the scientific theories of the Big Band and none of them suggest any such thing. On the contrary most of them talk about the Big Bang arising from a quantum fluctuation which wouldn’t be associated with any spin at all.



Because it’s not true.



I read the post I replied to in its entirety. I’m not going to search through the entire thread to see what else you may have said. You’re simply wrong and as usual you refuse to admit it. But I expect nothing less from a religious fundamentalist with an agenda.

You aren’t concerned with the open-minded discovery of truth. You’ve made it perfectly clear in all of your posts since you’ve first logged on that your ONLY goal is to support Christianity at all cost no matter what the evidence might be to the contrary.

So your motivation and closed-mindedness on the topic have been self-proclaimed time and time again.

Your gross ignorance of science has also been displayed repeatedly.

You have the audacity to pretend to know more about science than scientists themselves! When in truth you think you learn one little thing (that may even be incorrect) and from that you extrapolate into areas you know nothing about.

Stick with religion Spider. Learn about religion! Religions is not a science! These lame arguments you give to try to disprove science are really disgusting. You’re basically suggesting that scientist can’t even figure out their own laws of physics and that you can point out all their lame mistakes.

Take it somewhere else Spider. If there was any merit to the things you claim you’d have reason to apply for a Nobel Prize! The fact that you aren’t receiving it only goes to prove that your words are empty accusations against science.

Be as religious as you want. But going around claiming that you know more than all the famous and brilliant scientists are earth is the most arrogant claim any man can possibly make.

You must really be DESPERATE to save a dying religion to stoop to such pathetic behavior.

The correct way for a theologian to go about dealing with evolution is to accept that it happened and realize that the religious doctrine is written in parables and allegories.

It’s so simple, but you can’t see it. You’re too busy claiming to know things that you know nothing about.

....He walks in, burning stake still attached...

...still smoldering, but his hands are free...

...munching on the marshmallow...

...which is burnt...

...just the way he likes it...

...all sweet and gooey inside...

...IF you can get through the burnt "shell"...

...looks around...


"Uh.... anybody seen the unicycle? I have bought a horn for it."


The art of re-direction... is the only capacity of many... and there are a lot of trees in this forest...

On the 1st day, God initiated the evolution of space and light.

On the 2nd day, God initiated the evolution of water and atmospheres.

On the 3rd day, God initiated the evolution of dry land and vegetation.

On the 4th day, God initiated the evolution of the suns and the moons and the stars and the planets.

On the 5th day, God initiated the evolution of water creatures and birds.

On the 6th day, God initiated the evolution of land animals, man and woman....

and on the 7th day, God initiated the evolution of the rest....

Death for man entered for man in the garden as his reward for his actions and the rereward for man was provided.

Bdellium was present in the garden and that appears to be the rub.

Bdellium is assumed to be amber. Amber is described as being among minerals near the river and in the midst of gold and onyx. Amber is petrified tree sap.

To be visible, trees would have to be absent from the location one would think. Either the ground had previously folded itself upon itself in a kneading or the trees in the vicinity walked away. I'm open. It does suggest that perhaps some trees have died.

The earth does appear to be growing in size and attracting more material to increase its beltline from somewhere and that would expain its long life and perhaps even its life expectancy is far greater than we imagine.

But it in no way suggests that death is not present and in no way excuses man's death sentence for his errors as a physical creature in a physical environment that was created for his enjoyment and relationship with God to be full of joy in the process.

But death entering into the condition of physical and spiritual death (which seems to have been misplaced or ignored here), does not preclude nature's condition as being incumbent upon the debate of the existence and presence and source of man.

That distinction leaves open the interpretable value of age with respect to all of which is necessary to provide the garden itself.

Further, that man possesses certain definitive characteristics,such as physical death and the physiology to procreate, that suggest temporality upon his physical composition, why wouldn't all of creation exhibit the same intelligently designed temporality or corporality?

It stands to reason that interpretation of observances of nature need not be fully explained or understood to believe God at His word, which, by the way, is centrally incumbent upon this discussion.

JMHO






My point being that all of creation has been constructed with a temporal quality from the outset. Perhaps the foolishness of God remains wiser than all of us, which I find an immutably endearing quality to possess in the wrapping of the gift to be opened and played with by man. FREE WILL

Good morning, my friend!

Ah.... and yes, it does appear that not all trees grow in the same dirt as nature displays!

EXACTLY!!!

Perect 'specimen' of a fundie, as I suggested in my previous post above.

The only thing I would clarify though Abra, is that 'spider' and the rest of his fundie militia, do not support or defend Christianity. They work against Christianity in just about every known aspect.

Fundies support and defend their very own cultish blend of US protestant fundamentalism. Protesting Christianity as we know it. And strictly separate from Christianity as we know it.

Fundies don't know it, they are delusional, but their dogma is a fraud. If the fundies were not delusional, they would be plainly dishonest.

What do you say to someone whom considers that every problem in modern society since 1963 or so?!?!?, is a direct product of teaching Evolution in schools since 1963 or so?!?!?

Tell me, how do you enter that type of delusional universe, and tape some 'faulty synapses' back into function?!?!?

Evolution is the direct cause of all problems in modern society?!?!?

Would you like some cream in your coffee?!?!?

Exactly.

We can either accept that all the brilliant scientists throughout history, and all over the world, are complete bumbling idiots who have no clue.

Or we can accept that this is true of delusional uneducated fundies.

It's your choice folks.

and on the 8th day, evolution initiated the god of circular debate.....

Yes, please, and some raw honey too!!

I read something that made me laugh.

You may enjoy it, as well.

Silence is golden and duct tape is silver!

And the blind man's other senses are much more honed than he who has sight... much more honed...

I can assure you...

Silence is stronger than duct tape...

However......it cannot hold a side window in a '75 Nova, which happened to be shot out with a 12gauge...

Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.

Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.

Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?

People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?




Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:

Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).

Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.

Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.

Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.

In some ways these fundamental religious extremists inspire me to want to become a preacher.

Certainly not to join their misguided cause, but rather to genuinely teach the principles taught in the Bible without focusing and harping on all the negative crap.

I would make a fantastic preacher. I would preach Christianity in such a way that it would be extremely attractive and everyone would want to become a Christian out of pure love for the religion.

Unfortunately I can’t go down that path because I’m genuinely and sincerely convinced that the biblical account of God is indeed nothing more than made-made mythology. The case for this is overwhelming as far as I can see.

For me, to try to teach Christianity with a straight face would be no different than trying to teach Greek Mythology with a straight face. It just isn’t going to happen. To teach something as truth one must sincerely believe it in themselves.

I think it’s perfectly clear (at least it is to me) that many, I’m not saying all, but many religious fundamentalists are not into religion for God's sake, but rather they are in it for their own selfish egotistical pride.

Nothing is more attractive to an egotist than the delusion of believing that they are speaking for God! What better excuse to shove your own opinions onto other people and proclaim that they are ‘absolute truth’ that came from a higher power!

These people make themselves into self-proclaimed ‘martyrs'. As Voil points out, they justify outright lies and blatant misinterpretations as gospel truths simply because they have seriously deluded themselves into believing that they speak for God and therefore cannot utter a lie.

Sometimes I think this forum should be labeled – “Rehabilitation Center for Radical Fanaticals”

The fundies are the patients and everyone else contributes free social services to try to help them recover from their obsession with delusional

Wouldee,

You've obviously run out of tape!!!

Use mental dicipline instead.

I hope and trust firmly that you have some of that still!!!

I first suggested "... According the bible.." Certified thread (tm)..."

Fundies didn't take me up it.

I then proposed "... bible inerrancy' certified forum..." in this thread, but I must admit that I would rather support your coining phrase, Abra, and maybe keep the catchy and most Christian slogan I proposed:

"... take a 'Radical Fanatic' under your wing, and 'toughlove' him/her back to his/her senses!!!..."

What do you say people say, shouldn't we roll with this!?!?!

The Rehabilitation Center is, and was, and will be forever open......

... unless we get vaporized by some idideait pressing the wrong button.

But that's always a hot topic too!!!


Onward existential soldiers marching as to war.......