Originally posted by sonhouseEarly in the history of universe there were local disturbances (origin unknown(?) ). So when clouds contracted, the spin enhanced. This is the explanation for local spinning objects, such as galaxies, clouds within galaxies, objects within clouds, etc.
One thing, it has not been shown that the universe started out rotating. There are studies going on now trying to find patterns in the CBR that would support such a conjecture but so far the universe does not seem to be rotating as a whole which kind of throws a monkey wrench into the spinning planets idea.
When the BigBang theory was new, there was a symmetry problem. Why didn't the universe evolve smothly, as every force was counteracted by another? Why wasn't there exactly as much anti-matter as ordinary matter? I.e.: Where came the asymmetry into action, and why? We observe asymmetry, but we have troubles to explain it. Are the asymmetries explained by the inflation theory part of BigBang theory?
Any way, BigBang theory explains in far better way the observations about the young universe than any other theory does.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhere the planet’s rotation came from had nothing to do with any “rotation” the universe had.
One thing, it has not been shown that the universe started out rotating. There are studies going on now trying to find patterns in the CBR that would support such a conjecture but so far the universe does not seem to be rotating as a whole which kind of throws a monkey wrench into the spinning planets idea.
So you don’t need the universe to start out rotating for the planets to rotate.
Whole solar systems form from swirling (thus rotating) masses of gasses contracting under their own gravity and this is why whole solar systems rotate (including ours) -some of these swirling masses of gasses which solar systems form from would swirl one way or direction and other in a different (often opposite) way or direction due to random turbulence generated by the big bang -even if the universe as a whole doesn’t rotate! So different solar systems will rotate in different ways as they form and some of that angular momentum would be past on to the planets as they form.
Think of it this way: If you make a huge pile of gunpowder and then blow it up, then, under slow-motion camera, you would see that, within the resulting fireball, there would be swirling masses of gasses -some rotating one way and some rotating the opposite way -even if the original pile of gunpowder it came from was not rotating!
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm saying I have never monitored specific trees and their rings to
So do you deny that if we count 100 annual layers in a cross-section of tree that this must represent 100 years? -yes or no?
know if one type is better than another and if any at all actually will
give us the number of rings we should see. As we have discussed with
ice rings, things can happen that can give us false readings, and if
through time other things like that can occur and we are not aware of
them, than tree rings are not perfect thing to look at to judge time.
So no is the answer to your question.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseGo back to the ice issue that was shown that just counting layers was
So how wrong would you guess the tree ring data to be off? Would you say plus or minus 100 years in 10,000? plus or minus 1000 years? What?
You must be going on some gut level feeling about this or are you professing such a profound lack of understanding that you feel you could never undertake to understand such processes? If that is the case, it seems yo ...[text shortened]... e that what seems to us to be a 10,000 year old tree could in fact be 25 years old or something?
shown to be something we cannot count on without more knowledge.
Who is to say that also isn't true of any other 'layer' method of
counting anything?
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedNo, and it is insulting for you to suggest that. I have told you guys
KJ's margin of error will support whatever the bible says with regards to earth age :-(
over and over the age of the earth as far as I'm concern isn't known!
It could be billions of years old, and it does not changes how I view
the Bible what so ever. My complaint is that the methods being
discussed are not as full proof as you want to make them out to be
and in questioning your beliefs, I get this crap.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave you ever blown up anything in a perfect vacuum where nothing
Where the planet’s rotation came from had nothing to do with any “rotation” the universe had.
So you don’t need the universe to start out rotating for the planets to rotate.
Whole solar systems form from swirling (thus rotating) masses of gasses contracting under their own gravity and this is why whole solar systems rotate (including ours) -som ...[text shortened]... rotating the opposite way -even if the original pile of gunpowder it came from was not rotating!
and I repeat nothing was? If not how do you know an explosion
results could possibly give you anything like what is being suggested
occured?
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is still a matter of you denying hundreds of years of research by people far more intelligent then you or I. It all boils down to the idea that you will always doubt any human idea if it conflicts with the bible.
No, and it is insulting for you to suggest that. I have told you guys
over and over the age of the earth as far as I'm concern isn't known!
It could be billions of years old, and it does not changes how I view
the Bible what so ever. My complaint is that the methods being
discussed are not as full proof as you want to make them out to be
and in questioning your beliefs, I get this crap.
Kelly
In other areas of science you are perfectly willing to accept the work of hundreds of years, water boils at 100 degrees C at sealevel, etc. That does not conflict with the bible so you are perfectly content to completely believe that pronouncement. You don't doubt the ability of 2 part resin, a work of science, to harden into a very strong glue, because that does not conflict with the bible. Get into the area of the age of the earth, and all of a sudden mankind does not have enough intellectual firepower to show the age of the earth which shows you simply cannot accept data that conflicts with the bible. You have no problem accepting the idea that penicillin will cure a large number of diseases or that rockets have taken men to the moon or that we are getting pictures of the black hole at the center of our galaxy now using radio telescopes scattered all over the planet combined to give the effect of one giant radio telescope, all of these things and thousands more you would never have a problem with. Only with things that conflict with your own vision of what the bible seems to say about the age of the universe. Remember, the bible never said a word about how old the universe is, all you are going by is some estimates by people 2000 years removed from the writing of the bible so you instantly take their word for the matter, people who just make pronouncements and then deal with those pronouncements as fact with no scientific backup, yet you introduce doubt into hundreds of years of multi-disciplinary work that from ten different independent ways of measuring time resulting in readings that agree within a few tens of millions of years, 4.7 billion years for the age of the earth vs 4.5 billion years, all that work saying at least 4 billion years old but when it conflicts with those totally unscientific pronouncements by people 2000 years after the fact, then BOING, those people are right and 500 years of science is now in doubt.
The very idea of using tree rings to date time is off limits to you so you introduce the doubt factor of that and any other method of telling past time. You can't even answer a simple question of what order of magnitude do you think the times are out by because that would give people an idea of your estimate of time and you simply don't want to lay yourself open to any kind of attack so a blanket statement about 'I don't know' covers it all.
Originally posted by sonhouseOh well, there you go, smart people believe this so it must be the
It is still a matter of you denying hundreds of years of research by people far more intelligent then you or I. It all boils down to the idea that you will always doubt any human idea if it conflicts with the bible.
In other areas of science you are perfectly willing to accept the work of hundreds of years, water boils at 100 degrees C at sealevel, etc. Th ...[text shortened]... self open to any kind of attack so a blanket statement about 'I don't know' covers it all.
way it is! I forgot that was the standard of all things truth!
I give you my reasons for why I question the things you present as
the truth, and I get this crap from you about the Bible being the center
of my complains and I have not brought up a single verse to back up
any complaint I have about anything.
I do not have an issue with anything you can back up in the here and
now, when you start making claims about things you cannot back up
but only believe or assume to be true do to its historical time lines,
yes I will not call it those things factual but only believe about.
So yes, in today if you can provide your facts and figures and give
data that can be verified today about things you want to suggest is
true today we can move forward on very solid ground.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI do not know is a truthful statement, you may claim to know that
It is still a matter of you denying hundreds of years of research by people far more intelligent then you or I. It all boils down to the idea that you will always doubt any human idea if it conflicts with the bible.
In other areas of science you are perfectly willing to accept the work of hundreds of years, water boils at 100 degrees C at sealevel, etc. Th ...[text shortened]... self open to any kind of attack so a blanket statement about 'I don't know' covers it all.
is the difference between you and me.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course the chance of being right when you are smart is considerably higher than if you are stupid, naturally...
Oh well, there you go, smart people believe this so it must be the
way it is! I forgot that was the standard of all things truth!
What did you think? That stupid people has monopoly of the truth?
Now, this is anti-science talking...
Originally posted by KellyJay…I'm saying I have never monitored specific trees and their rings to
I'm saying I have never monitored specific trees and their rings to
know if one type is better than another and if any at all actually will
give us the number of rings we should see. As we have discussed with
ice rings, things can happen that can give us false readings, and if
through time other things like that can occur and we are not aware of
them, ...[text shortened]... e not perfect thing to look at to judge time.
So no is the answer to your question.
Kelly
know if one type is better than another…
Of course you haven’t personally monitored rings growing in specific trees. But many other people (mainly gardeners and scientists) have. Would you dismiss every finding they make just because YOU personally didn’t see it with your own eyes?
If so, then, using your own logic, you must dismiss everything the bible says because you didn’t personally see any of the events that the bible says happened! You certainly didn’t personally witness the creation of the Earth nor life.
Through their observations, it has been a well established by them that most types of trees do produce annual rings and you can count the number of years simply just by counting the number of rings. So what is the problem here?
…. and if any at all actually will give us the number of rings we should see.….
What does that mean? if we see 8 rings then there are 8 rings! How do you think a ring is defined? -it is defined by its appearance.
…As we have discussed with ice rings, things can happen that can give us false readings, and if through time other things like that can occur and we are not aware of them. ......
There are a number of scientific methods for finding out how trustworthy data collected from layers or rings is. One of the main method is by cross-referencing -if several strata and sets of rings say exactly the same story even though they are collected from all over the world (including opposite sides of the globe) then obviously we can assume that the probability that, each and every data source was independently disturbed in same way to give a false indication of past events and yet, by an amazing and massive coincidence, they were all corrupted to give EXACLTY the SAME false story, to be a vanishing small probability.
In addition, there are scientific ways to tell which layers have been disturbed and which layers haven’t. For example, if a layer has been disturbed, it may fail to appear to go straight through the strata but appear to come to a dead-end etc. more than one ice-core was taken from Greenland so cross-referencing can be used to proof which layers are reliable and which are not and in which ice cores.
…So no is the answer to your question. ...
I think you mean “yes”? -you appear to be saying you DO deny it.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat explosion?
Have you ever blown up anything in a perfect vacuum where nothing
and I repeat nothing was? If not how do you know an explosion
results could possibly give you anything like what is being suggested
occured?
Kelly
The big bang theory doesn't claim that there was an explosion at all so that isn't what is being suggested.
Originally posted by KellyJay…Have you ever blown up anything in a perfect vacuum where nothing
Have you ever blown up anything in a perfect vacuum where nothing
and I repeat nothing was? If not how do you know an explosion
results could possibly give you anything like what is being suggested
occured?
Kelly
and I repeat nothing was? …
1, The big bang that was the start of the universe didn’t occur in a “perfect vacuum” or any type of ”vacuum”. That is because the big bang was the birth of space and time itself and, without space or time, there can be no “vacuum”.
2, I don’t need to personally blow something up to know what happens. I have seen slow-motion films of demonstrations of explosions on TV of what happens.
3, how do you think it would make any fundamental difference if a pile of gunpowder explodes in a “perfect vacuum” as opposed to in air? Obviously both would produce swirling gasses and that is what I was referring to in that post.
…. If not how do you know an explosion results could possibly give you anything like what is being suggested occurred? ….
Science (to be a bit more specific, physics).
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI find that an interesting point -if this is true, I must confess I didn’t know that! One of the defining features of a normal explosion is that it rapidly expands IN SPACE. But the big bang wasn’t a rapid “IN SPACE” because obviously there was no “SPACE” outside it for it to rapidly expand in! Instead the space within it expanded. Is that why the “big bang” would not be regarded as an “explosion”?
What explosion?
The big bang theory doesn't claim that there was an explosion at all so that isn't what is being suggested.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe Big Bang was not the start, the start was when whatever was there
[b]…Have you ever blown up anything in a perfect vacuum where nothing
and I repeat nothing was? …
1, The big bang that was the start of the universe didn’t occur in a “perfect vacuum” or any type of ”vacuum”. That is because the big bang was the birth of space and time itself and, without space or time, there can be no “vacuum”.
2, I d ...[text shortened]... g like what is being suggested occurred? ….[/b]
Science (to be a bit more specific, physics).[/b]
that blew up came into being and that was what, when, why, and how?
Kelly