How did it all begin?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

I wanted to know what it means to you. I could visit Wikipedia myself if I wanted its opinion on the matter.

As I suspected, I don't think it holds any meaning for you at all. You are such a fraud. How many times must you get caught at this game before you start composing your own posts?

Why would you expect dj2becker to have an original thought? Why wouldn't you expect him to give someone else's definition but act as if it was his own? Do you (or anybody else) think that he really spent hours of research on his first two posts and that the summary is his own words? Hasn't he shown himself to be an unrepetent plagarizer more times than even an omnipotent God could count?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]It depends on what he's imagining, now, doesn't it? 😀

😀 Yea. But I suppose if it was not God then he would just take it down as a heavy trip and continue with his drugs.

Really??? You have people splitting seas and such at your mission station? Believe me, I would very much like to see that.

😉 You get different types of miracles ...[text shortened]... t hearing and seeing things.[/b]

Are you deaf and blind? 😉 I'll pray for your healing... 😀[/b]

Are you deaf and blind? 😉 I'll pray for your healing... 😀

Good one 😀

😀 Yea. But I suppose if it was not God then he would just take it down as a heavy trip and continue with his drugs.

Or he'd think it's really God, and stop doing drugs. Which would be a positive outcome, I'd say. Me still thinks, could be hallucinating, man. Got to have kaya man... got to have kaya man... got to have kaya man... for the rain is faaaaaaling... ;D (you do realize that rastafari culture believes in the same christ as you do, and they're smoking it away...)

---

“And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.”

Is that really taken from the bible? It certainly casts a doubt on Moses, doesn't it? If God is smoking, then maybe, juuuust maybe, the writers of the bible was. 🙂

Oh, and I took the exerpt from here:

http://rastaites.com/repatriationnews/report3.htm

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

I wanted to know what it means to you. I could visit Wikipedia myself if I wanted its opinion on the matter.

As I suspected, I don't think it holds any meaning for you at all. You are such a fraud. How many times must you get caught at this game before you start composing your own posts?

So you think that 'ad hoc' could mean something different that it is supposed to?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Not a single article you cited makes the ridiculous claim that a photon has a temperature; that is outright nonsense and ignorance. Trying to change the meaning of the word "temperature" so that somehow, someway an elementary, subatomic particle can have a "temperature" is sophistry and idiocy.

Are you blind or something?

I quote: "As the ...[text shortened]... d claims.
I will not waste more time with you. You have been damaged beyond repair.

Cheers.[/b]

Moron, do you know what it means when a word is placed in quotes?? They are using the term "temperature" of a photon in the same manner as I would use the term Fundamentalist "scientist".

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you think that 'ad hoc' could mean something different that it is supposed to?

I guess you're right. See one of my earlier posts for my reasoning behind this conclusion.

Originally posted by Soothing
[b]Are you deaf and blind? 😉 I'll pray for your healing... 😀

Good one 😀

😀 Yea. But I suppose if it was not God then he would just take it down as a heavy trip and continue with his drugs.

Or he'd think it's really God, and stop doing drugs. Which would be a positive outcome, I'd say. Me still thinks, could be hallucinating, man. ...[text shortened]... 🙂

Oh, and I took the exerpt from here:

http://rastaites.com/repatriationnews/report3.htm[/b]

(you do realize that rastafari culture believes in the same christ as you do, and they're smoking it away...)

I don't think it is the same Christ. Their "christ" makes them adicted to the drug, my Christ sets you free from the drug.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b](you do realize that rastafari culture believes in the same christ as you do, and they're smoking it away...)

I don't think it is the same Christ. Their "christ" makes them adicted to the drug, my Christ sets you free from the drug.[/b]

But they read the same book. They just interpret it differently. The rastafari culture is actually quite good. They speak of getting close with nature and the creation. Isn't that your goal as well? To be close to God. Well, if God does indeed smoke, as rastafaris has interpreted passages of the bible, you should definitely smoke herb as well. I'm not talking about the destructive chemicals that drug addicts are pumping their bodies full of. I'm talking about herb, man. Innocent and pure. It will take you closer to God, man.

I'm actually making a point, although it is somewhat buried underneath sarcasm of the worst kind. See if you can find it? My point that is... 😀

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't think it is the same Christ. Their "christ" makes them adicted to the drug, my Christ sets you free from the drug.

lol. You are such a naive person, it boggles the mind.

dj, did you really, truly write that opening post? Swear by Jesus' name?

Originally posted by dj2becker
The current speculation on origins is known as the "Big Bang theory" which is not at all compatible with the Biblical account as it needs about 15 billion years to materialise.

Not compatible with YOUR interpretation of the Bible... millions more people of different denominations disagree.

I'm not having a dig at your beliefs... (my girlfriend shares a similar view)... I just think you're wasting a lot of time and effort desperately trying to disprove a theory which may or may not be true, and to what end? Atheists will continue to believe in the Big Bang theory, as will many Christians. You, and others, will continue to believe a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. You're fighting a battle you can't possibly win, for negligible gain.

Take a big chill pill. Treat your partner to a meal out at a nice restaurant. Have a few beers with the boys. Go for a walk in the country. Take in a movie. Far better than wasting your time on all this malarkey, surely? 🙂

Originally posted by dj2becker
To Starman: Sorry pal, my ID thing will have to wait to while. In the mean time I have been busy working on the Big Bang Theory:

THIS IS NOT A CUT AND PASTE JOB! (So you might want to take the effort to read it cos it took me hours to put it together)😉

Here we go: Fasten your seatbelt.

The "Big Bang Theory" states that in the beginning there wa ...[text shortened]... OLOGY, pp.150-153.) This would appear to be another contradiction to the theory.

Continued...

THIS IS NOT A CUT AND PASTE JOB! (So you might want to take the effort to read it cos it took me hours to put it together)😉

As far as I can tell, this is true. I appreciate your putting in the time to write this.

Experience tells us that any system left to itself runs down, becomes more random, less orderly, more chaotic.

This idea has been thoroughly investigated scientifically. It is known as entropy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Note the complex equations and precise terminology. The difference between your quoted statement and the research into entropy is similar to the difference between creationists' often talked about ideas about 'complexity' and 'information' not increasing without 'intelligent intervention' and what might be actual science involving that idea.

Yet here we see the order and complexity of the entire universe resulting from the total disorder of two gasses shooting out of an explosion. For science to have accepted an idea which runs completely counter to all experience we would presume that there is powerful evidence to support the idea, and a very good reason why it was put forward in the first place...And yet the theory requires that this expanding gas clumps together into clouds, which contract to form galaxies, stars, planets and people...How then did the material clump together instead of spreading out? Since no credible explanations have been put forward it has become necessary to believe that there were very special conditions for the explosion itself.

The entropy of all matter being concentrated at one point is waaaaayyyy lower than the current universe. In addition, there are all kinds of forces acting on particles in the universe. Think of the differences between dropping a mass of dry sand and dropping a block made up of magnets sticking together. When the magnets hit the ground, they will scatter, but will also tend to group into clusters with nearby magnets. This clumping together into clusters reduces entropy, but it's perfectly normal. Entropy can decrease in open systems very easily. A galaxy, a planet, an organism...all open systems.

Such theories give rise to the “anthropic principle”, which states in effect, that the explosion must have been extremely carefully designed specifically to make the eventual existence of man possible.

This is not the anthropic principle.

In cosmology, the anthropic principle in its most basic form states that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe.

This is obvious. If a theory or hypothesis is not consistent with our existence, it must be wrong, because we exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A cloud of gas at a high temperature tends to fly apart.

According to the ideal gas law, as temperature increases, so does volume if all else is constant. However this law assumes no intermolecular forces and is in fact highly inaccurate in some situations.

Calculations show...

I'd like to see these calculations. Far too often have I seen ID proponents and/or creationists refer to "scientific studies" and "calculations" which turn out to be ridiculously flawed when examined carefully.

The material shooting out of the Big Bang must have had enormous linear momentum, but the laws of mechanics show that it could not have had angular momentum, in other words this material would be flying straight out of the explosion centre.

Please elaborate. I don't think this is true. The angular momentum of the original 'egg' would be conserved, so if it was spinning then the material shooting out would also have angular momentum. In addition, one particle can have angular momentum if another particle takes on the opposite angular momentum, giving a sum of zero.

Hopefully I'll give more time to your following posts. However I'm not done with the book of Daniel so who knows...

Originally posted by dj2becker
The material shooting out of the Big Bang must have had enormous linear momentum, but the laws of mechanics show that it could not have had angular momentum, in other words this material would be flying straight out of the explosion centre. Yet the astronomers all agreed that the universe is full of bodies which are rotating and also moving in circles (or ...[text shortened]... ries who mathematics they can handle, even if those theories are logically not very convincing.

As stated before the big bang is not matter shooting out with linear momentum from a single point but rather and expansion of space with matter moving about with random momentum. Angular momentum always arises in such a system whenever matter is drawn towards various central points eg stars or planets. Good examples are water going down a plug hole or a tropical storm. The physics of this is well known.

Originally posted by dj2becker
As we look out into the universe there appear to be many objects swirling about like eddies. There are millions of “spiral galaxies” which look exactly like the eddies produced in our little experiment with a bowl of water. One of them is even called the “Whirlpool” Galaxy.

The angular momentum, the apparent tendency for everything to swirl around (which has no feasible explanation on the Big Bang Theory),

The spirals observed in the shape of many galaxies is not as a result of "eddies".
There is an article "Ripples in a Galactic Pond" in the October 2005 Issue of Scientific American Which expains the effects in detail.

The angular momentum, the apparent tendency for everything to swirl around (which has no feasible explanation on the Big Bang Theory),
As expained above the tendency to rotate is a part of everyday physics and therefore the Big Bang theory has no problems in that area.

Any theory of origins can only be accepted by faith.
The Big Bang Theory does not deal with origins but rather with history after the origins.

Recorded history goes back approximately five thousand years. No scientists can go back in time to take measurements of what happened bofore that, so when scientist make statements about anything that happened more than five thousand years ago they are dealing with speculation. The current speculation on origins is known as the "Big Bang theory" which is not at all compatible with the Biblical account as it needs about 15 billion years to materialise.

I see that as far as you are concerned "recorded history" = "The Bible"
How do you know its age other than through faith ? No scientists have gone back in time even one day to take measurements so why the 5000 year limit on speculation ?

You appear to accept that galaxies exist and that we can see them. Do you accept the speed of light ? Can you do a little research and find out what distance the closest galaxy is from us ?

Originally posted by Soothing
I can not enlighten you. I think enlightment is a strong word for something as vague as the subject of universe and how it came to existence. I can give you a few questions to ponder, though:

1) Everything we see, hear and experience are based on the principal that everything is created at one time or another. Explain how God can always have existed.
2) ...[text shortened]... creation) is a little more fantasy, than a theory based on facts that we can observe around us.

If I accept everything in the bible as true, and that there is a God, and that supernatural things happen (they're not in any way explainable as having natural causes), then I would have to accept the possibility that there are trolls and all kinds of things we cannot detect.

Trolls? There are certainly enough on this forum to merit a belief in them.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Many problems have suggested that the Big Bang cannot be the correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Pondering the impossibilities, an American Astronomer, Allan Guth, realised that he could get over some of them if the entire universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light for part (but only part) of the early stages of the Big Ban ...[text shortened]... ore humanism took over, “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth”.

Continued...

Scientists have discovered evidence that the red shifts are probably not due to motion. Chief among these scientists is the famous astronomer Halton Arp, who for a long time was a lone voice crying out against orthodoxy. Other able scientists have joined him.

Would you elaborate on the nature of this evidence?

His use of the term “disparate information” is a polite way of saying “evidence which disproves the popular theories of astronomy”.

What makes you think he was intending what you think he intended? Your "paraphrase" seems like quite a jump from what the guy actually said. Can you describe how you determined what this man meant?