SLOWSTORM

I would like to point out that Elmo goes emo every Christmas. As soon as they hit that first No-L. *Points to thread originator's avatar* Hmm. An Emo Elmo for Christmas. Might replace the old tickling ones if you did it right. I can see the add now. Elmo, in full black sits in a corner, brooding...

*scratches head* #-o what in the world are you babbling about? Thanks for pointing out to me how an effective forum works...glad to see you are engaged Mr 200 posts. Hey bright one, how about you actually read through the thread, I have and I have made multiple replies to this and the other thread in this forum about the Flood, how about you actually read them? Glad you figured out the subject is about the bible, I replied in length several times about the fallacy of the bible...not just made a flame remark or two and run off....enter the conversation/debate or shut it. Hmm... :-k Good point. I was a bit too flamey. My apologies. That "I am great, all men come sit at my feet while expound" post was just flame bait, though. =P~ I should have resisted the urge. :oops: I have been keeping up with this thread; I just don't post often. A theory is not yet proven using the scientific method. The Big Bang CAN not be proven using the Scientific Method, while Macroevolution HAS not been proven using the Scientific Method. They are both cut off at the first step, as neither has been observed.

Instead of "expounding" upon a "view," the correct actions in a forum would be reading the thread and making a contribution (preferrably useful) to the discussion at hand. Since the discussion at hand is "The Bible," use your theoretically uber-elite intellect to figure out what people expect you to post. :P On topic, though, doesn't a volcano spew more carbon in a day than all our factories do in one hour? Carbon dating only works if one is a Uniformitarianist.

Okay, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about the facts. That molecular hydrogen has been found to be distributed through space is a fact. That molecular hydrogen can account for the missing mass in the bullet cluster (and other galaxies) is also a fact. You could even call it Dark Matter, though it would actually be simply virtually transparent matter. Gravitational Lensing only requires gravity; gravity is a result of mass; molecular hydrogen has mass. Therefore molecular hydrogen could cause Gravitational Lensing just as easily as mystical unseen matter. Why not believe the one that actually has scientific proof? You have faith in an unseen particle, but will not open your eyes to scientific proof. :shame: Thanks for proving my point, an expert in electron spectroscopy doesn't make you an expert in astrophysics; much in the same way an aeronautical engineer isn't an expert on civil engineering. HmmÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ look up about 3 linesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ There you go. What part of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅPh.D. in Physics from Laval U.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

I didn't take into account the data from the Bullet Cluster, because it was hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. However, I will attach an explanation at the end of this post. I referenced Paul Marmet on red shift due to Hydrogen molecules, not on dark matter. There are plenty more references I can put up, but the simple fact has been proven using the scientific method. Hydrogen molecules bend light red. Simple as that. As to his credentials, Check them out. Paul Marmet (1932-2005) B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University O. C. (Order of Canada) F. R. S. C. Author of more than 100 papers in the field of Electron Spectroscopy. Professor, Physics, Laval University, QuÃÆÃâÃâébec, Canada: 1962-83, Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada: 1983-90, Visiting, Adjunct, Professor, University of Ottawa, 1990-99. He was the one of the most qualified people in Canada to write on this topic, a 21-year Professor in Physics who received the Order of Canada. If he doesn't understand General Relativity, who does? you? :lol: (according to this link you do not believe it, as it says "The laws of physics must be the same for all observers," and you believe in subjectivity) I submit that both my quoted authors were extensively studied in Astrophysics and Astronomy. Try reading the references from their papers. After all, the proof of the pudding is under the crust. You are incorrect. :shame: Particles go faster than light past the event horizon of a Black Hole. That aside, the Inflation Theory states that the border of the universe expanded at that rate. That would include all matter, simply in the form of particles. Allow me to explain some basic Physics. Matter is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of Neutrons, Electrons, and Protons. Neutrons and Protons are made up of Quarks, while Electrons belong to a family called Leptons which also includes muons and taus. Thus Quarks and Leptons are the particles which make up matter. Quarks, Electrons, and Gluons are what comprised ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅSpaceÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

If you mean my answer to the First Law Problem, the answer is that, short of a total rewrite of the First Law, there is no viable answer. BUT if the First Law were rewritten, it might read (in simple terms, not the equations) "The balance of matter and energy in the universe" (perhaps any system) "shall remain constant over time" Hmm. I need to work on this... :-k Edit: I think you did a great job, Ambassadar. Good narrowing-down skills :wink:

Care to offer ten examples? Should be easy if there's a "ton" Again, care to offer some proof? Both Evolutionists and Creationists claim that there had to have been two people of opposite gender in order to reproduce. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim.

They aren't, the big bang is what happens just after creation and we can infer about it through things like Microwave background radiation and galactic red shifting; how do you propose we find out what happened before the big bang? Basically science follows the following quote: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein It always amazes me how people can keep old ideas alive, which have been long proven wrong. Most real scientists (and by that, I mean ones who actually know what they believe, and why) dropped the big bang theory long ago. You may ask why, and voila, the light shall be shed. First, Galactic Red Shift. We say they universe is enlarging, and we are moving away from a core. This has been reduced to mere conjucture, however, due to Molecular Hydrogen in Space. So we're unable to prove we are moving away from distant stars. :shock: As for Background Radiation, whose model does it fit, anyway? When the new data from Boomarang came in, these people kept their model, with yet more proof. However, Big Bang physicists had to develop the Inflationary Period Theory. That's all good, as theories change (that's why they're called theories, they haven't been proven using the Scientific Method) However, there are several huge problems with this model. The huge one is fairly obvious. What happens when anything goes faster than the speed of light? Yup, it goes backward in time. This easily solves the Second Law problem in relation to a winding-down of the universe, but also introduces an even larger problem. Allow me to explain. We'll follow the life of one particle of premordial material under this model. Time zero - leaves from absolute center of the universe, at immense speed. Time however long it takes to get a body length out of the mass of premordial material(infinitesimally past zero) - breaks speed of light barrier, begins to go backward in time. Due to how much faster than light the particle is travelling, we are now back at time zero, and MOVING THROUGH SPACE. At the speed theorized, the particle will never slow down, due to a lack of other particles with which to collide. Logic dictates that two particles fired in a straight line at the same speed from the same point can never collide without outside interference (collision with other particles). Possible answer - the UMB (Universal Microwave Background) existed before anything else, and always has. Ignoring problems in people's minds regarding infinite life particles, the UMB might eventually slow down the particles, BEFORE THEY WERE EMITTED. That brings us to Time immeasurably before zero - begin our reference of time. One particle is slowed enough by the UMB to collide with another, and soon they're all coming together. Masses attract, planets form, people start whining, and here we are. Okay, where is the big problem? We solved the SECOND law problem by ignoring the FIRST law problem. Every particle of that matter came into being where and when it had not been before. This makes the closed system versus open system universe debate a moot point. Closed or open system, those particles simply came into being at that time and point in space. This problem is still lacking a logical answer. There are a few more problems with this theory, as well, which may be solved in time, but until then, if this theory is correct, and the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, the origin of the universe has not happened yet. #-o So, how do we find out about what happened before the Big Bang? If this theory is correct, you're living it right now. :shock:

Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws. Wham! Gotcha! :wink: Satenza, you walked into that one with your mouth open! Good logic, Locke.

I used to go once a year, with my mates from college. It was great fun. There was one fellow who tried to act like John Wayne by just walking up the field and shooting everything that moved. He walked into a trap zone, and about 4 guys pegged him at close range. Painful, but fun! My favorite memory was when I and some close mates rushed up the side of the field, and overran half their team, shooting them from behind. Good times. :lol:

Dude, It's all about the hair! \

Well, whether we should, or shouldn't, someone is going to have to deal with him eventually. He and Kim Jong Im have been spitting in the face of the world for quite some time now. You can only spit in the face of a giant for so long before it rolls over, and squashes you like a bug. I say better now than when Hillary is President. (If she makes the Democratic nomination, she will be.)

My argument is essentially that there is a difference between reality, and the model of reality that we create in our minds and interact with. Because of this important gap (wherein things like societal pressures, faith, drugs, etc... which define our reality, come in) there is no single universal reality. We all live in vastly different worlds, defined by an infinite multitude of factors. The existence of god depends on only one thing, faith. And because some people believe and some don't, god exists, and he doesn't exist. Aaand somebody's been smoking too much dope lately. D'oh!......P Seriously, though, the only people I've ever heard espouse that idea are those who also smoke dope. Sit down and compare notes with someone who hasn't sometime. We all live in the same reality, though some have differing perceptions of it.

hmm... In the middle of a nasty mid-life crisis, right about when I realise that this spare tire I've been wearing around my waist won't keep the Viper running. And probably having lots of kids, and married, etc. Yup, good times. :D

I think pault is trying a little reverse psychology? Convince someone it's "good", and then it won't be as much fun to be "bad?"