May 21, 2011. The date of the Rapture.

Considering the majority of the people I know who are convinced they will be raptured, I don't want to be raptured.

 

Whether raptured or ruptured, I've had more than enough of Trebuchet's whine.

 

I agree. I'd rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

 

It is truly sad that you are indeed the one in ignorance, totally ingnorant of the lecturers background, that just happens to include many years if not decades teaching evolution at university level. It is my personal belief that that experiance indeed qualifies him and his lecture(s) as more than "ignorant opinion from someone with no knowledge behind the opinion" as you have mistakenly labled him.

 

It seems we have differing understandings of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. According to that law, it is my understanding that if I could spin in a clockwise direction so fast that my arms came off, the both of them would continue to spin in a clockwise direction. Not one spinning spinning clockwise while another spins counter clockwise. This principal can be easily demonstrated by simply filling a spinning a platter full of 100's of peas. As the peas fly off, every single one will fly off in the same direction the plate is spinning. In order for galaxies, etc., to spin in opposite direction, there would have had to have been 2 dots, spinning in different directions and we would have the Big Bangs Theory.

You are quite correct. The big bang should have produced identical amounts of matter and anti-matter, canceling each other out and all that should be left would be energy. Again, that is not what we find, and is a subject discussed briefly in the first 4-5 minutes of the lecture.
Hey, that makes 3 things we agree on so far. Who knows how many more we can find.

 

Is this the gentleman you are referencing?

 

Conservation of angular momentum applies to the physics of our universe as it exists today. What existed at and immediately after the big bang is not the same as what we have now. We know that irregularities occurred, producing the non-uniformities that we see in our current universe. It is quiet possible that these non-uniformities produced galaxies with opposing rotation.

Even with conservation of momentum, two galaxies can have opposite rotations if they are created simultaneously, in which case the total angular momentum remains zero.

Tom

 

Professor Walter J. Veith

He looks like a quack.

In any event, he is most certainly unqualified to render informed opinions in the field of quantum physics, which is the topic of your "deal" to Daniel. I say that not just because he has no academic credentials or occupational expereience in that field, but because his "research" along those lines is not true scientific research but is instead a series of expeditions into cherry orchards to find cherries that match the color he says all cherries must be.

 

Someone clicked the link.
Yes, it is, along with this from [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith"]Walter Veith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Forgot to add that Wikapedia did not include this note,
"Professor Veith is one of only five scientists in South Africa honored with the Royal Society London Grant for the Reconstruction and Development Program to establish a research climate in post-apartheid South Africa." Source
But on the off chance someone might actually want to hear him discuss his his education, views, qualifications for those views and how they changed over time, you can click here.

To xs650, thanks for looking. IMHO, it appears you are now qualified to know what you are agreeing or disagreeing with, so far as that video is concerned.:cheer2:

 

APKid, as a PC member has so aptly put in their signature, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not you own facts. The challenge I extended to Daniel was to do with cosmology, not QM. In fact QM was not even mentioned in the post. I have never even hinted that Professor Veith was qualified in QM.

 

The standard Christian line is that you don't get to rule in hell. After reading Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, I'm REALLY glad I don't believe in hell. The sermon in that story scared even me.

What you state is correct. But how did you start spinning in the first place??? The ONLY way you could start spinning clockwise without violating the conservation of angular momentum is if something else started spinning counterclockwise! Thus, for one galaxy to spin one way, there MUST be another spinning the other way!

Or, say you have two heavy objects spinning opposite directions to balance each other for a total angular momentum of zero. One of them could throw something off in a retrograde direction if it merely slowed down a bit, since the smaller object carries less momentum.

Again, you fail to understand that the TOTAL angular momentum of the universe is probably zero. Your analogy of the plate of peas fails for the same reason as your analogy of the lost arms: You assume a universe that is already spinning (the plate). In fact, if the universe has an angular momentum of zero, then the peas in the real universe MUST be spinning in all different directions.

Finally, the matter/anti-matter question is something science does not yet have an answer for. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MAGICAL MAN IN THE SKY MUST HAVE DONE IT!!!

 

Daniel, I'm glad to admit that some of your comments really make me smile, not in a bad way, but because I believe you are trying to interject humor into a discussion that on so called christian forums often turns angry and nasty. So far we seem to have avoided most of that.
As for your question,

I would have used my feet, LOL. As for the 'dot' that exploded in the big bang, I think it would have needed to be spinning before it exploded because if it were not spinning before the explosion, there should be no spinning/rotating galexies, planets, etc.
Exactly how it got started spinning before the explosion would be a question for the evolutionist to address. Remember, I have choosen to put my faith in the creationist side, where I'm allowed, no, required to fill in missing proof with faith.

 

Source: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost"]Paradise Lost[/ame] by John Milton

 

Thank-you, it was as easy determination to make. I looked at enough of the video to get his name then did a little digging. After reading about Veith I saw no reason to watch the video. The guy sounds like a quack.

 

This is one reason I have no interest in listening to Christians try to either refute science or claim it proves their religion: By and large, they haven't got the vaguest notion of what science actually says!

There was no "dot" and it didn't "explode." There was no "before" because time itself begins only once there is space, and space begins only with the big bang. But even these words are inadequate. Natural language is rooted in our experience, and our experience does not prepare us for the concepts that arise from QM. In the Biblical account, there was formlessness and chaos before god organizes it into the light and the dark (which of course makes no sense because these are just metaphors for night and day, which are perceptions we experience depending on whether we are on the daylight or the nighttime side of the Earth).

This is an important point: Time is just one dimension of space-time. They cannot exist apart from each other. So since space has its beginning with the big bang, so does time. To say that god existed "before" time, is to imply that there is time before time.

But in relativity physics and QM, everything starts with the big bang. There is no "before" and there is no "dot" and there is no explosion, and since there is no "before," there cannot be anything "before," not even god. The concept of a god who has "always" been, is inconsistent with QM because in QM there is no "always."

Finally, both matter and energy, and even space itself, comes into being as the universe expands. In the very early moments, there is only energy, no matter. Then matter condenses out of the energy when the temperature drops enough for a breaking of the symmetry between the two. More space is constantly coming into being as the universe expands.

Mainstream Christians, who accept evolution, the age of the universe, and the big bang, claim that god made it all happen. But that does not work because if QM is correct, there cannot have been a god until the moment of the big bang itself. It's kind of like the old retort: "If god made the world, who made god?" As I've demonstrated, the answer "God has always been" does not work because "always," while it has meaning colloquially does not actually exist. There is no "always."

Don't think of the big bang as the explosion of a dot. Think of it as the coming into existence of space and time and energy; and then matter soon after. Space and time are part of a single grid: space-time, and there cannot be one without the other.

Satan makes that choice according to Milton. It is interesting how much of Christian beliefs today come from Milton rather than from the Bible. Milton's Satan is a heroic bad guy but very angry.

 

You do enlighten me (but not convence me), Daniel. If the big bang wasn't an 'explosion', perhaps we should call it the Big Silent Expansion. As for my refferance to the 'dot', OK,

called it in essance and atom. Dot, atom, my meaning I believe you understand.
But back to the Big (non explosive) Bang, some quick research led to this artical that agrees with you, that it was not an explosion in the sence that we commonly think of thing exploding,

but unfortunantly also continues by saying

You will find the entire artical intresting and it's only about a 60 second read. B)
PS. we could probibly continue this discussion in PM's, but judging from the number of hits on the thread, others are enjoying our repore.

 

Beware. It's important to note that present day QM and General Relativity breakdown at the start of the big bang. We do not know the mathmatics at the "start" of the big bang and have to pick up just after it occurs. Until we develop or find mathmatics that are somewhat consistent, it's speculation for what can or cannot be said with conviction of "before" and "at" the inception of the big bang. (e.g. There may not be time, but that does not eliminate causality....or something else.)

 

Watch out Tom, daniel is going to explode any minute!

For more entertainment, do read over this thread if you haven't already.

 

Oh no you don't... this is really getting good.

And D thinks our faith is flawed.

 

Actually, my favorite quote about Hell is from the Discordians: "Hell is a place reserved for those who think you will go there if you don't believe in it."