Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)

Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #30 - June 02, 2009, 04:38 PM

Quote
The LAW of angular momentum says it does. Imagine a mery go round going around and around and you are on it. It speeds up very very fast and you hop off, you will be spinning the same direction as the merry go round. This is a scientific LAW. it cannot be broken.

That law only applies if there is no external force acting on the system, Dok as I explained above. If you jump off the merry go round and somebody pushes or pulls you in the opposite direction you will not be spinning in the same direction as the merry go round.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- NineBerry
- Tame Wolf
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #31 - June 02, 2009, 04:42 PM

Just that no one jumps off the merry-go-round, but things on the merry-go-round combine. The movement of the merry-go-round makes the revolution of all the planets go in the same direction. But the rotation of the planet is independent of the movement of the merry-go-round. It is only dependent on the relation of the particles toward each other that formed that particular planet.

bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #32 - June 02, 2009, 04:44 PM

That too.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- NineBerry
- Tame Wolf
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #33 - June 02, 2009, 04:45 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 04:38 PM
That law only applies if there is no external force acting on the system, Dok as I explained above. If you jump off the merry go round and somebody pushes or pulls you in the opposite direction you will not be spinning in the same direction as the merry go round.

That explanation is not correct. Planets never jumped off the merry-go-round. They are still on it. That's why they are revolving around the sun. The rotation of the planets was not caused or influenced (exceptions prove the rule) by things hitting the planet after it already existed. The rotation appeared while the planets were forming.

bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #34 - June 02, 2009, 04:55 PM

Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 04:45 PM
That explanation is not correct. Planets never jumped off the merry-go-round. They are still on it. That's why they are revolving around the sun. The rotation of the planets was not caused or influenced (exceptions prove the rule) by things hitting the planet after it already existed. The rotation appeared while the planets were forming.

...so....where does the bang come in? What banged...and what caused it to bang?
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #35 - June 02, 2009, 04:58 PM

Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 04:45 PM
That explanation is not correct. Planets never jumped off the merry-go-round. They are still on it. That's why they are revolving around the sun. The rotation of the planets was not caused or influenced (exceptions prove the rule) by things hitting the planet after it already existed. The rotation appeared while the planets were forming.

I know that, NineBerry, that's why I added "that too" under your post. Dok has both his understanding of the origin of planets AND his understanding of the Law of Angular Momentum wrong.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #36 - June 02, 2009, 05:08 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 04:55 PM
...so....where does the bang come in? What banged...and what caused it to bang?

Nothing banged Shan. The name Big Bang was coined derisively by Fred Hoyle in 1949 in an attempt to discredit a theory he did not accept, much like creationists refer to the Theory of Evolution as "Darwinism". Such misnomers sometimes stick, even among people who accept the theory in question.

Contrary to what Dok says, the theory has always been about the universe expanding from a hot, dense, primordial particle. It has never been about an explosion.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Jack Torrance
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #37 - June 02, 2009, 05:09 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on May 28, 2009, 12:36 AM
Oh...no,no,no! You see, science is like a foreign language to me. It requires alot of math...and I don't know trigonometry. And then there are all kinds of dry reading materials with alot of Latin words and no lolspeak or kittehs. You see, I have the "gift" of ADD and, sorry to say, you are barking up the wrong tree.

In other words, an easy target for believing a load of crap without asking for any evidence, perchance?

Ha Ha.
- NineBerry
- Tame Wolf
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #38 - June 02, 2009, 05:09 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 04:55 PM
...so....where does the bang come in? What banged...and what caused it to bang?

Nothing banged. The formation of suns and planets has nothing directly to do with the big bang. It was much much much later. The relevance of the big bang for the formation of suns and stars is as much as the relevance of my father banging my mother is to me writing this post:

The latter couldn't have happened without the other, but there is no direct influence.

bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #39 - June 02, 2009, 05:26 PM

Cheetah,

As you probably guessed, I invited Dok. He is a good YEC researcher and has the patience of Job...as well as a longer attention-span. I know this forum is not an invite-only forum...but I was careful to warn impatient people not to come here.

Please, will you not send unbelievers to my forum? I would have to make a new section.
- dok
- Member
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #40 - June 02, 2009, 05:28 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 04:38 PM
That law only applies if there is no external force acting on the system, Dok as I explained above. If you jump off the merry go round and somebody pushes or pulls you in the opposite direction you will not be spinning in the same direction as the merry go round.

please what outside forces were there during the Big Bang, or even the formation of a solar system?? your leaving science.
- dok
- Member
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #41 - June 02, 2009, 05:30 PM

Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 04:42 PM
Just that no one jumps off the merry-go-round, but things on the merry-go-round combine. The movement of the merry-go-round makes the revolution of all the planets go in the same direction. But the rotation of the planet is independent of the movement of the merry-go-round. It is only dependent on the relation of the particles toward each other that formed that particular planet.

the planets and eerything else gets its spin from the acreation of the forming star. there is no way around this.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #42 - June 02, 2009, 05:32 PM

Quote from: dok on June 02, 2009, 05:30 PM
the planets and eerything else gets its spin from the acreation of the forming star. there is no way around this.

Initially, yes. Other factors may come into play later.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #43 - June 02, 2009, 05:34 PM

Quote from: dok on June 02, 2009, 05:28 PM

please what outside forces were there during the Big Bang, or even the formation of a solar system?? your leaving science.

Well, during the formation of a solar system you have the rest of the universe outside it. Just a thought.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #44 - June 02, 2009, 05:35 PM

Quote
please what outside forces were there during the Big Bang

None, which is why the original primordial particle wasn't spinning according to Big Bang Theory. I asked you for a citation to support your assertion to the contrary, did you find one yet?

Quote
or even the formation of a solar system??

Many external forces would be present during the formation of a solar system - gravitational pull between all the different bodies present, and numerous collisions with the various junk floating around space.

I do hope you don't mimic convicted tax fraudster Kent Hovind when you do your tax returns as faithfully as you do with your attempt to debunk the Big Bang.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #45 - June 02, 2009, 05:35 PM

Alright.

We have a new member named 'Beetlepumpr'. That's very funny, guys.

Help!
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #46 - June 02, 2009, 05:37 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 05:26 PM
Cheetah,

As you probably guessed, I invited Dok. He is a good YEC researcher and has the patience of Job...as well as a longer attention-span. I know this forum is not an invite-only forum...but I was careful to warn impatient people not to come here.

Please, will you not send unbelievers to my forum? I would have to make a new section.

No, don't worry I won't. Dok should stop regurgitating Hovind's misquotes of old science text books though. Then he might know that the primordial particle wasn't spinning.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #47 - June 02, 2009, 05:41 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 05:37 PM
No, don't worry I won't. Dok should stop regurgitating Hovind's misquotes of old science text books though. Then he might know that the primordial particle wasn't spinning.

Thank you. Whoever Beetlepumpr is, he must just like that name. I was thinking 'beetlepumper' sounds like 'biblethumper'. Sorry. I thought it was a practical joke.
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #48 - June 02, 2009, 05:43 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 05:37 PM
Dok should stop regurgitating Hovind's misquotes of old science text books though. Then he might know that the primordial particle wasn't spinning.

So far, it sounds legit, to me. Did Hovind cheat on his income taxes? I may post a video called 'Freedom to Fascism'. I know it shocked me.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #49 - June 02, 2009, 05:48 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 05:43 PM
So far, it sounds legit, to me. Did Hovind cheat on his income taxes? I may post a video called 'Freedom to Fascism'. I know it shocked me.

Hovind is currently in jail, didn't you know that?

Quote
Since November 2006 Hovind is serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

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

How can it sound legit so far to you, Shaneequa? We've debunked all of his arguments so far - he understands neither the Big Bang, nor the law of angular momentum, nor the formation of planets and solar systems. Are you reading anyone's posts other than his?

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #50 - June 02, 2009, 05:56 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 05:48 PM
Hovind is currently in jail, didn't you know that?

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

How can it sound legit so far to you, Shaneequa? We've debunked all of his arguments so far - he understands neither the Big Bang, nor the law of angular momentum, nor the formation of planets and solar systems. Are you reading anyone's posts other than his?

I'm reading all the posts...but this topic confuses me. What happened to the LOL cats? I know that depending how one is pushed or pulled off a merry-go-round will roll a different way....but a merry-go-round does not have that much momentum.

I thought Hovind was in jail for tax fraud. ...but if it's crookery, he needs to be in jail, no matter if his science sounds legit to me or not. Being a good scientist is not always the same as being a good person.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #51 - June 02, 2009, 05:59 PM

Quote
I'm reading all the posts...but this topic confuses me. What happened to the LOL cats? I know that depending how one is pushed or pulled off a merry-go-round will roll a different way....but a merry-go-round does not have that much momentum.

Only if there' no external forces, Shan. Did you miss that bit? And the bit where NineBerry explains that this is irrelevant to the spin of the planets anyway?

Oh, and Hovind is not a good scientist, he's as crap at science as he is at everything else apart from fleecing the gullible. Like most famous creationists, he is a pathological liar.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #52 - June 02, 2009, 06:02 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 05:59 PM
Only if there' no external forces, Shan. Did you miss that bit? And the bit where NineBerry explains that this is irrelevant to the spin of the planets anyway?

I'll check it again....but why is thread called 'Big Bang To Man' if there was no big bang? I'm going to DQ for a Blizzard, but will be back.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #53 - June 02, 2009, 06:02 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 05:56 PM
I thought Hovind was in jail for tax fraud. ...but if it's crookery, he needs to be in jail

What do you mean by "but if it's crookery"? Don't you think tax fraud is "crookery"?

Quote
no matter if his science sounds legit to me or not. Being a good scientist is not always the same as being a good person.

Hovind has never been anything even remotely approaching a scientist. His science cannot sound legit to you because he has never had any.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #54 - June 02, 2009, 06:03 PM

Quote from: Cheetah on June 02, 2009, 02:42 PM
I don't know which two you're referring to, and physics isn't my thing any more than it is Shaneequa's, but I'll have a go. The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe expanded from a very hot, dense state within finite time, and is continuing to expand.

So there was something before the Big Bang?

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #55 - June 02, 2009, 06:10 PM

Quote from: Shaneequa on June 02, 2009, 06:02 PM
I'll check it again....but why is thread called 'Big Bang To Man' if there was no big bang? I'm going to DQ for a Blizzard, but will be back.

Because the theory about the origins of the universe is called "the Big Bang theory", I've explained why already, so has NineBerry.

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
- NineBerry
- Tame Wolf
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #56 - June 02, 2009, 06:15 PM

Quote from: dok on June 02, 2009, 05:30 PM
the planets and eerything else gets its spin from the acreation of the forming star. there is no way around this.

The spin of the solar system, yes and following from that the direction of the revolution of the planets.
The spin of the sun itself, yes.
But not the spin of the planets.

And it's called accretion, not acreation.

So, since the use of locats is requested, I will follow this request. If a cat sees a ball of wool, it will start to play with it and hence the cat together with the ball of wool will rotate around themselves. Since cats don't follow any laws or orders, the direction of the rotation is only dependent on the stubborn will of the cat.

Even if the cat and the ball of wool happen to be in a room on the space station Bablyon 5 (which happens to rotate itself), there is no question that the rotation of the cat playing with her ball of wool is only dependant on her stubborn will and not on the rotation of the space station.

In fact, if you are standing on the space station, you do not even notice that it is rotating. That is the effect of the principle of relativity (very much simplified). Just as you don't notice that you are standing on a planet that is rotating at an incredible speed. You don't notice it, because you, the ground, the air and just everything is rotating in the same way.

bleed for me...kill for me...die for me
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #57 - June 02, 2009, 08:02 PM

Quote from: NineBerry on June 02, 2009, 06:15 PM
The spin of the solar system, yes and following from that the direction of the revolution of the planets.
The spin of the sun itself, yes.
But not the spin of the planets.

And it's called accretion, not acreation.

So, since the use of locats is requested, I will follow this request. If a cat sees a ball of wool, it will start to play with it and hence the cat together with the ball of wool will rotate around themselves. Since cats don't follow any laws or orders, the direction of the rotation is only dependent on the stubborn will of the cat.

Even if the cat and the ball of wool happen to be in a room on the space station Bablyon 5 (which happens to rotate itself), there is no question that the rotation of the cat playing with her ball of wool is only dependant on her stubborn will and not on the rotation of the space station.

In fact, if you are standing on the space station, you do not even notice that it is rotating. That is the effect of the principle of relativity (very much simplified). Just as you don't notice that you are standing on a planet that is rotating at an incredible speed. You don't notice it, because you, the ground, the air and just everything is rotating in the same way.

Alright, but what is the cat?
- Shaneequa
- Pub Regular
- I make pancake for you :)
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #58 - June 02, 2009, 08:11 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on June 02, 2009, 06:02 PM
What do you mean by "but if it's crookery"? Don't you think tax fraud is "crookery"?

No. For a born-again Christian, it is best to go ahead and pay the jizya even though that is what it is....but for an unbeliever, I would not blame any unbeliever for not filing his or her income taxes. They have no mandate to give to Caesar what is Ceasar's...even if the Ceasar is not a Ceasar...but an illegal Federal Reserve that is privately owned.

Quote
Hovind has never been anything even remotely approaching a scientist. His science cannot sound legit to you because he has never had any.

I haven't heard much of him, but I have liked what Dok has said, so far. And he is the only YEC here that likes to debate the YEC. I find the topic of science makes me want to hit my forehead with a tennis shoe.
- Cheetah
- Global Moderator
- offline
Re: Big Bang To Man (Esp. for Shaneequa)
Reply #59 - June 02, 2009, 08:14 PM

The cat is a star.

Now, let's recap, to save Shaneequa ploughing through the whole thread. Dok contended that the Big Bang theory cannot be true because if it were the solar systems would all be revolving in the same direction, and so would everything in them, because the Law of Angular Momentum would dictate that they would all have to revolve in the same direction that the primordial particle revolved in before the explosion.

This has been debunked on the following grounds...

1) The primordial particle did not spin.

2) The Big Bang was not an explosion.

3) The Law of Angular Momentum only applies in the absence of an external force acting on the object in question.

4) The formation of solar systems and planets happened much much much later than the Big Bang, and in the intervening years many external forces came into play.

Each one of the above points on its own would be a fatal flaw in Dok's assertion, but all four together is a complete slam dunk. And just for good measure, he revealed along the way that he didn't even know that our Moon spins on its own axis.

Now, Dok dealt with, Shannequa can you answer the question I asked you before he joined in, please?

Do you believe that all other species on earth evolved in the way I described on page 1 of this thread? And what kind of "variations" do you think the human race has undergone?

"Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny." - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »