Big Bang - Big Dud

quote:

---

Two planets spin backwards, one spins on its side, and Jupiter has several moons that orbit the planet backwards and spin backwards. Doesn’t this seem just a little strange to you? You may say that maybe something struck the planets to make them spin backwards. Do you know what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet? I think it would leave a dent.
  —CreationScientist

---

This and an oxymoron for a username. Hehe, couldn't help but giggle a bit.First of all, some of the moons of Jupiter may have been captured after Jupiter was formed. Secondly, there is no law of physics that requires that every planet in a solar system spin in the same direction, therefore no need to reverse the spin of any planet and therefore no dent. You may want to branch out from creationist sites spouting pseudoscience and actually venture into sites with actual science. Don't take this personally, mind you, we all started off at the same level of scientific knowledge, which is none. Secondly, if it is so obvious that the planets were violating a fundamental law of physics, don't you think there would be a loud uproar among physicists? I would say the silence among physicists should tell you something.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-30-2004]

quote:

---

They check them, concoct new mindbending pagan stories, and practice making fun of those who use them against their new, improved, imagined 'monopoly on science' doctrines.

---

Could you please show us, with data and evidence, how these new theories are merely concocted and not based in reality. You are coming close to accusing scientists of falsifying data. This is one of the greatest sins in science, and such an accusation needs to be based on actual evidence instead of a disliking of the conclusions drawn. Being a scientist myself, I take this as a personal affront that fellow scientists are being accused of lying without any basis in fact. In other words, put up or shut up.

quote:

---

After all you guys are simply in denial that your veiw of science is a religion as well. At least that's the way I see it.

---

Nice try, but no dice I am afraid. If evolution is a religion, why are people of every religious affiliation involved in its construction? Sorry, evolution is the result of eliminating religion from science, not the other way around.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-31-2004]

quote:

---

Since no one proved him wrong, maybe it's you who do not have much chance of understanding?

---

It behooves the person asserting a position to support it, not on the detractors to prove in wrong. You are putting the cart before the horse.

quote:

---

You cannot put a blanket of pureness over all modern science, and every part of it. Much of it is belief biased and based.

---

Methodological naturalism is the blanket, and as long as it is adhered to the science is solid. Getting back to the topic, where in the laws that govern the celestial bodies should we insert supernatural mechanisms? What evidence can only be explained by the supernatural or the direct interference of a diety into the natural world as observed in the field of astronomy? How can we reliably test for the presence of the diety's influence in a repeatable fashion? No one has ever been able to do this, and this is why methodological naturalism, the "blanket of pureness' within science, works, has worked, and will continue to work. Methodological supernaturalism has yet to make a reliable theory, why is that?

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a "creation" scientist

---

Ranks up there with "honest snake oil salesman". Science is the study of natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. If you stray away from this you are no longer a scientist. I think we call them theologians, so maybe creationist theologian would be a better title.

quote:

---

if light is a particle and a wave then as a particle it has mass but as a wave it has none so it is both matter and not or does a wave have mass and is therefore matter as well ???

---

Actually, anything with velocity and mass has a wavelength. Using de Broglie's equation:wavelength = h/m*vwhere
h=Plank's constant
m=mass
v=velocitySo even a car going down the freeway is both matter and a wave. However, the wavelength at 100 kmh is so long it becomes meaningless. It is only at relativistic speeds does the wavelength become an influence on how something behaves. Just for an example, a human moving near the speed of light may actually refract, just like light, if they passed through a small enough aperature, say a door way. Just from memory, but the variable m*v is changed to momentum (p) when dealing with photons. I am not sure if this means that the mass of a photon can not be measured or if it is impossible to separate the mass from the momentum. Been a while.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-19-2004]

quote:

---

dont't know how entropy work's into this. i guess it goes up like to always does.

---

Entropy doesn't always go up, but the total entropy throughout the system does. Even if the total entropy within the system must go up, this doesn't rule out small decreases in entropy within the system. Just being nitpicky.[This message has been edited Loudmouth, 05-03-2004]

quote:

---

If evolution is not the answer to the origin of the first living things and the formation of the universe then where do you go? Is that just a blank page waiting for an answer?

---

Do we have to know where the iron came from within the earth to build a car out of it? The question of where life came from is handled by the Theory of Abiogenesis, a separate but related theory.

quote:

---

aside from this I would like to know how the "unfolding" of the universe caused the Earth's placement to be so exact that if it was farther or closer away from the sun, we would freeze or burn up respectively.

---

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the formation of solar systems, other than supplying energy at the very beginnning. Again, you want car manufacturing to explain iron ore mining techniques.