It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Theosophy and Christianity

page: 26
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Myself as well! I used to see 333 all the time starting my Junior year and it drove me nuts; because at the time I had no idea what it meant.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


I use the term "infiltrated" affectionately because all the guy did was get invited along as a guest to this seminar and wrote down as much as he could about what the speaker was saying

In the future, please watch the use of words you use. Many of us are avid readers, and are good at word origins and meanings. I don't really care what the Christian "infiltrator" says, I myself studied Theosophy, along with many other disciplines, and there is no Satan's in the teachings. Christians seem to find Satan everywhere they look, and just today I told one person he must be in love with this Satan, always supporting him, claiming he is real to anyone and everyone, and posting his name in every reply.
To understand any one of these Esoteric Teachings, one must devote a few years of deep study of the discipline. One who stands ignorant of the discipline, and makes assumptions of it, is simply fooling their own selves. They do not know, nor will they ever know.
To scared, or lazy to read and study, in my considered opinion.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Numbers are the language of the universe, and geometry is its poetry.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Can you do a number reading or whatever for me too? Like you did for Autowrench?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by autowrench
 


how about definitive proof that... "Jesus" was a real being?


We will get to that in time Auto...

No, we will not get to that, because you do not have any proof, and neither does anyone else. Belief in Jesus is a leap of Faith, and Faith is belief in a thing not proven.


I am frankly surprised that you are still at the stage of only considering whether Yeshua was a real being though. Even his enemies who would have every motivation to stifle the growth of Christianity by saying that he didn't exist record his existence. The debate from the serious atheist scholars is not over his existence but whether he died on the cross and resurrected again. We will get to that debate properly in a few weeks time perhaps. At the moment I have about 6 science books I need to read and freshen up on so I can begin properly just on this science of origins in a few days time.

Friend, I looked for proof of your Jesus for many years, and even when I was a Christian, I never once felt, heard, or saw Jesus. Perhaps a man did live back then. So what? He did not start a religion, or build a church, and was not a God. He lived, and Died, and was buried. End of story.
No amount of debate will convert me into your cult, or any other Jesus Cult. In fact, I really don't understand why Christians come here to convert new people anyway. most us us are intelligent and educated enough that we just know better than to believe in Myths and suppositions.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


So you want to do your research before finishing an argument that you didn't even know enough to start in the first place?

If you don't know what you're talking about to begin with, do your research and THEN challenge others.

That is pretty much what I just told him, and also that no amount of debate will convert me into the Cult of LDS.
JG is a pretty smart kid. Wonder what he will come up with next?
I would ask him a list of questions, but he takes too long to answer, and I suspect he is loosing sleep trying to prove his Cult is the Right Cult to join to get to Heaven. And I do not even want to go there anyways!



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
I need to look into more on the Christian cross myself, but from my opinion of the cuff right now, considering that the form of death by crucifixion was only invented by the Roman empire...


Stick to quoting the Bible, your history stinks. Crucifixion was invented long before the Roman Empire (34BCE) and was practiced in Macedonia, Persia and Carthage as well as in Italy.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


So you want to do your research before finishing an argument that you didn't even know enough to start in the first place?

If you don't know what you're talking about to begin with, do your research and THEN challenge others.


There is a general consensus on this thread that seems to think that the Bible is based on absolute bs, that next to none of it is of value, no accuracy whatsoever or Divine inspiration and those people who think there is any truth in it are brainwashed morons. To me this is the most idiotic and ignorant opinion around, based on no semblance of facts at all. Sure, lots of Christian's never research anything about science, other religions, historical records let alone know what their own religion really teaches. If you think you can just dismiss Christianity based on the fact that most other Christians can't represent properly (and make the inference that therefore Christianity is wrong) then I will try to make up for that so that you will have no excuse.

My background is economics, financial and investments orientated. I am on this forum specifically to warn of the coming false-christ, his tactics and how he will come (and other aspects about this particular event) originally specifically for Christians mostly (as Adventists are the ones who are given the details specifically and it is our role as givers of the 3 angels messages from Revelation 14). I have done research for my own personal interest on most aspects of the whole origins debate and from that research the evidence points clearly towards design over random/ natural processes and short earth life (as well as the life and historicity of Jesus). Most of this research was done a few years ago, some a little more recent so I know what is there and where to find it. I am sure I could make a very descent attempt at things just by going off things I can remember from off the top of my head, in either case I have to re-find the information again to cite it properly.

You wanted irrefutable evidence, you will get some. As I have said before about giving irrefutable evidence to someone before....you can give them such evidence and they can still dismiss it (probably because they have so much other unanswered questions about Christianity that they think out weighed what they just have been presented). Without having a fully framed alternative to jump to straight away, most people will just hold on to what they feel works for them even if ultimately it is devoid of reality and not ultimate Truth, especially when this Christian Truth has some conditions attached on how one is to follow God.

The question arises again....are you after Truth or point scoring?

I plan to give all those willing to search for Truth a well presented account of it from the Christian perspective (which will ultimately lead them to strengthen their own truth one way or another). I am not a walking encyclopedia of facts with a photographic memory....please forgive me if I can't convert you to Christianity instantly by giving a couple of sentence unresearched opinion puff piece where you can magically know everything there is to know about the world.

I am after a serious discussion here of mutually discovering truth through research of what the latest evidence shows not argument point scoring to feel comfortable and validated in ones own ignorance. 4 or 5 against 1, I think you can hold your horses somewhat while I get better prepared to present information that you have probably never heard about before across multiple subject categories, all of which are not my native field.

edit on 24-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by autowrench
 


how about definitive proof that... "Jesus" was a real being?


We will get to that in time Auto...

No, we will not get to that, because you do not have any proof, and neither does anyone else. Belief in Jesus is a leap of Faith, and Faith is belief in a thing not proven.


I am frankly surprised that you are still at the stage of only considering whether Yeshua was a real being though. Even his enemies who would have every motivation to stifle the growth of Christianity by saying that he didn't exist record his existence. The debate from the serious atheist scholars is not over his existence but whether he died on the cross and resurrected again. We will get to that debate properly in a few weeks time perhaps. At the moment I have about 6 science books I need to read and freshen up on so I can begin properly just on this science of origins in a few days time.

Friend, I looked for proof of your Jesus for many years, and even when I was a Christian, I never once felt, heard, or saw Jesus. Perhaps a man did live back then. So what? He did not start a religion, or build a church, and was not a God. He lived, and Died, and was buried. End of story.
No amount of debate will convert me into your cult, or any other Jesus Cult. In fact, I really don't understand why Christians come here to convert new people anyway. most us us are intelligent and educated enough that we just know better than to believe in Myths and suppositions.


"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." 1 Corinthians 1:26-27

Pride is still a killer, and the ruler of this age knows it.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


There is a general consensus on this thread that seems to think that the Bible is based on absolute bs, that next to none of it is of value, no accuracy whatsoever or Divine inspiration and those people who think there is any truth in it are brainwashed morons.

Spend a few years in research and study without a religious filer, and you will no doubt come to a similar conclusion yourself. Be sure to have a Strongs, and take lots of notes.

My background is economics, financial and investments orientated. I am on this forum specifically to warn of the coming false-christ....

That was predicted over 2000 years ago, and there has been no false Christs' that I know of. And so what if a false Christ does come to America? Forget we are an armed Nation, and not afraid to shoot? I have a cap and ball pistol that is loaded with iron balls. I would like to see a Spirit stop Iron.

You wanted irrefutable evidence, you will get some.

Sigh. We have heard that one before. Show us, we promise to look at your "irrefutable evidence," but I have to tell you, if you have such proof of Jesus, there is a man at MIT who was offering a lot of money for proof a few years ago.

while I get better prepared to present information that you have probably never heard about before...

Hear that? He has information we have never heard of before. Is that even possible?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 




There is a general consensus on this thread that seems to think that the Bible is based on absolute bs, that next to none of it is of value,


Oh, it has value. There are some very healthy anecdotes in it. As an accurate historical text, however, yes...it is completely ridiculous.

Especially when it has cost as much freedom and blood as the Bible has. No other history book has ever done that. Individuals may find inspiration in history books, but the Bible is the only so-called "history book" that has ever caused such fruitless cult worship.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


You would have to do this yourself. Requires name and birthday. He was simply relating to qualities of my own reading. The Numerologist.com offers somethig like this for free on their website. You fill out the form and they send you an email with the link; even show you how to get each number.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
There is a general consensus on this thread that seems to think that the Bible is based on absolute bs, that next to none of it is of value


I don't know anyone who ever said the bible had no value at all. It's arguably the most powerful book ever written. All that's said is it's not a history book. Some of the "stories" are just that. Some may be true. But any way you look at it, it's a great guide to live by if you don't take it literally.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I just tried it. Got the chart back.

...to say my mind is blown is an understatement. It's scary accurate!

edit on 25-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Names effect you as well. Names have meaning, and carry vibrations, therefore your name can define who you are to a degree, because you are embodying that vibration..

Since the planets have attributed that can be seem as vibrations they also effect who you are when you are born based on conjunctions and houses.

This is why they push apophenia claims on people who notice synchronicity in an attempt to devalue Numerology or the study of vibrations.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
In the exploration of how we have come into existence through the studies of various stages of the developments of life and origins we can see which religious paradigm is compatible with the observed world, and therefore based on Truth.

1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution- Variations within kinds

In this first post I will highlight some areas of irreconcilable problems in the stages of cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary development that cannot be overcome by naturalistic means (i.e arguing through the laws of nature). These issues with the Big Bang model suggest that these first 3 stages of development were aiding supernaturally by a highly intelligent force outside of the confines of time, space and matter (i.e the universe) and therefore views such as atheism and pantheism, where this supernatural force outside of the creation doesn't exist suggests these paradigms are incongruent with reality. Panentheism, a view that enables a supernatural designer/creator outside of nature, will be looked at more closely in discussions involving limits to the age of life on Earth and organic and biological evolutionary problems.

So let's begin the exploration into belief systems...
Naturalism is the belief that nothing exists outside of nature. In this view, the universe and everything in it came about by the same kinds of processes observed within the universe.

The Big Bang hypothesis developed as a way to explain the observation that light coming from different stars and galaxies seem to be red shifted meaning that everything was moving further away from each other in all direction. If the Universe was expanding then obviously it must have been smaller in the past. The big bang idea began with a Belgian astronomer, Georges Edward Lemaitre. According to Isaac Asimov, Lemaitre conceived this mass to be "no more than a few light-years in diameter." At the very least, that would be two light-years or about twelve trillion miles. By 1965 that figure was reduced to 275 million miles, by 1972 to 71 million miles, by 1974 to 54 thousand miles, by 1983 to "a trillionth the diameter of a proton". Now, according to folk like Bolton Davidheiser (Sept 1993) it is a singularity, or NOTHING (known as a quantum fluctuation). And everything, it is claimed, came from nowhere.


The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. Its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.
Alan Guth & G. P. Steinhart, Scientific American, May 1984. p.12


As the hypothesis has developed over time it has become increasingly complicated and convoluted in order to explain the observations that don't agree with the initial simple idea. Two of these added descriptions, despite going against a naturalistic mechanism that might have enabled the process to happen, are that this singularity was spinning very fast (no explanation is given what caused it to speed up) and that the system went through a period of cosmic inflation to explain the contradicting horizon, flatness, and magnetic monopole problems and the observation that objects are moving outward in an arch formation rather than a linear path.

The magnetic monopole problem comes about as the theory of everything coming out of this point of infinite mass and heat. Under this scenario of huge heat, conventional physics would say that objects of a single magnetic pole would have been created as well but because they have not been able to detect any of these objects that the theory suggests should be there they instead claim the universe went through a period of 'inflation' which has pushed all these monopoled particles from observable view. In other words, we will make up some reason why we can't observe what should be there so that we can still attempt to explain our origin through a facade of naturalistic means (despite everything exploding out of nothing making no sense at all).

Despite these issues for the atheistic science establishment, one that would concern those who have a belief system involving that the universe and we are immortal (pantheistic), need to consider the implications of this ever expanding universe as well. One major problem is eventual heat death. Any hot object transfers heat to its cooler surroundings, until everything is at the same temperature. In an ever expanding universe, with no mechanism to add net energy into the system, eventually objects and heat energy become so dispersed and degenerated that the whole universe becomes a dark, cold and shrinking, inhospitable, lifeless and boring dust cloud. Without a force outside (and above) time, space and matter to sustain the universe (having limitless energy), the system will tend toward death. The system cannot 'live' without this supernatural force.

Astrophysicist Jason Lisle, Ph.D says:

According to the currently favored version of the big bang, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely and grow colder. Usable energy will become increasingly scarce, and will eventually cease altogether, at which point the universe will die a “heat death.” At this point, no “heat” will be left, so the universe will have a temperature close to absolute zero everywhere. No life will be possible at that point since no usable energy will exist.
Taking back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It (2011), p.44


Now let's begin to break down each stage of this naturalist development.

1. Cosmic Evolution - Defying the naturalistic laws of Physics

The Conservation of Angular Momentum

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?
source


A 3 minute video explanation of the concept of Conservation of Angular Momentum


So not only do some of the planets and moons (satellites) spin backwards, opposite to what the big bang predicts and can explain sufficiently but so do some entire galaxies. Take galaxy NGC 4622 for instance.




A quick glance at the galaxy shows that it is a beautiful spiral galaxy. However, if you look at it carefully, you see something odd. There are two different sets of spiral arms. That, in itself, would be a little unusual, but not really noteworthy, except that these two sets of spiral arms wind in opposite directions! As far as I know, this is the only case of that in a spiral galaxy. The inner spiral arms wind clockwise, and the outer spiral arms wind counterclockwise. Now, that would be downright bizarre. But, the strangeness doesn’t stop there. Earlier studies indicated that the outer spiral arms are reversed from the direction of galactic rotation.

Now, let me explain. Spiral galaxies nearly universally rotate as the look, with the spiral arms trailing the direction of rotation. So, the prominent spiral arms in this image would tend to indicate that the galaxy were rotating counterclockwise. Clearly, the inner spiral arms tell a different story, though. So, a first guess might be that this galaxy is the result of a merger, in which the inner part of the galaxy rotates one way and the outer portion rotates in another direction. But, the outer spiral arms of this galaxy seem to go backwards. In other words, the spiral arms lead. But, this is a very unsatisfying finding, and many astronomers doubted the results.

Now, Byrd, et al, present new Fourier analysis showing that the disk does rotate clockwise, meaning that the outer spiral arms are, indeed backwards! This is an independent method of analysis showing the rotation direction of the galaxy, and confirming earlier findings that the outer spiral arms are backwards. In other words, the outer spiral arms are leading the rotation, not trailing it. What makes this whole finding even tougher to explain, though, is that there appears to be no disruption of the disk between the inner and outer regions, other than that the spiral arms go in the other direction. Further, they found that there are fainter spiral arms embedded in the disk in both inner and outer portions of the disk that seem to wind the same way.
source

-----------
Another major contradiction to science (and the belief system of all those proposing universal counteracting balances must exist) of the naturalistic big bang model is the Lack of Anti-matter.


Where's all the Anti-Matter?
One of the many scientific problems with the big-bang notion is called the “baryon number problem.” In the big-bang scenario, the universe starts out infinitely small, and infinitely hot, in a point called a “singularity.” All the energy in the universe, and even “space itself,” is contained in this point. The point rapidly expands like a balloon and the energy cools as it is dispersed. The energy forms matter—hydrogen and helium gas. It is this gas which allegedly condenses to form stars and galaxies. Virtually every step in this conjectured process is riddled with problems that are indicative of the big bang’s dismal inadequacy as a scientific model. Let’s highlight one of these problems involving the conversion of energy to matter.

Energy can indeed be transformed into matter. This can be done in a laboratory. However, such reactions always produce an equal amount of a substance called “antimatter.” Each class of particle of matter has a corresponding anti-particle. Antimatter is identical to ordinary matter in virtually all respects except one: the charge of the particle is reversed. So, whereas a proton has a positive electrical charge, its antimatter counterpart, the “anti-proton,” has a negative charge. Likewise, electrons are negatively charged, but an anti-election (also called a “positron”) has a positive charge. As far as we know, it is impossible to create matter from energy without creating an exactly equal amount of antimatter. This is what laboratory science has shown us.

If the big bang had actually happened, it too would have produced an equal amount of antimatter. Therefore, the universe today should have an equal amount of matter and antimatter. But it doesn’t. The universe is made almost entirely of matter. This is no slight imbalance; it is a huge problem. It is estimated that the universe contains 10 to the power 80 atoms (that’s a one followed by 80 zeros). Each of these has a nucleus made of protons (and sometimes neutrons). Protons and neutrons are “baryons.” There are ubiquitous baryons in the universe, and yet there are virtually no anti-baryons to be found!

Big-bang supporters have come up with an idea to try and save the big bang from this baryon number problem. They have proposed that on extremely rare occasions energy can produce matter only—with no antimatter produced as a by-product. Indeed, there are a number of variant speculations in physics that rely on this notion to solve the problem of the missing antimatter, but, of course, this idea does not rely on the results of observational science. Observations have shown that matter and antimatter are always produced in pairs; we have never seen one produced without the other. As usual, the naturalist must rely on conjectures that are inconsistent with observations. The baryon number problem remains a serious defect in the big-bang model.

This problem for the big bang is actually a design feature for biblical creation. When particles and anti-particles touch, they destroy each other and release enormous amounts of energy. If God had made the universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as physics requires for a natural origin), then the matter in the universe would have been destroyed by any contact with antimatter, releasing devastating amounts of dangerous radiation. The universe contains virtually matter only because it was supernaturally designed and created by God.
Taking back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It (2011), p.80-82


This opening post has highlighted some issues with the traditional atheistic (and pantheistic...as it is just "sexed-up atheism", according to Richard Dawkins on p. 40 of his book, 'The God Delusion') hypothesis of the big bang model that was initially designed to explain the red-shifted light from stars and galaxies. This particular model unfortunately is trumpeted around in popular culture though as the official consensus explanation amongst scientists as a model that has no contradictions and fully explains initial origins as is. Through a look at some development of the model as well as some naturalist defying contradictions with it, we can see that not only are the kinks in the model far from solved and set in stone but rather so issues are being found out that suggest a cosmic formation could not have occurred without some significant supernatural intervention.

The pantheistic belief system as well as those promoting the concepts of a universal balance (counteracting forces) necessary in the system seem to be contradicted by the observed evidence and scientific exploration. For those basing their beliefs on purely naturalistic or universal balance explanations, this belief does not seem to be supported by reality (i.e not Truth).

Next we will look through the next couple of stages of develop of our existence, chemical as well as stellar and planetary evolution, and begin to look at the physical settings and fine-tuning of this existence set in place by this outside creative force which shows that life and our existence was definitely no accident.
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Despite these issues for the atheistic science establishment, one that would concern those who have a belief system involving that the universe and we are immortal (pantheistic), need to consider the implications of this ever expanding universe as well. One major problem is eventual heat death. Any hot object transfers heat to its cooler surroundings, until everything is at the same temperature. In an ever expanding universe, with no mechanism to add net energy into the system, eventually objects and heat energy become so dispersed and degenerated that the whole universe becomes a dark, cold and shrinking, inhospitable, lifeless and boring dust cloud. Without a force outside (and above) time, space and matter to sustain the universe (having limitless energy), the system will tend toward death. The system cannot 'live' without this supernatural force.


The theoretical models you chose to argue against do not incorporate any of the more cutting edge theories such as super-string theory which has the possibility of replacing inflation. Super-string theory also includes M-brane theory which details the mechanisim of how a universe that experienced heat death can be rejuvenated by two collasping branes.


Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet spinning. To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as it flung out.


The serious flaw in the arguement was that the Big Bang was an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Nothing 'blew up' or 'exploded', this is a typical creationsist arguement from the point of ignorance.


The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?


The Law of Angular Momentum does not say that the angular momentum of some non-isolated object such as Venus is constant. There is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the initial rotation (or lack thereof) of the infant universe. Additonally there is no correlation between the rotation of objects in the solar system and the Milky Way. The angle between the ecliptic and galactic planes is about 62 degrees.

A rather simple article can explain the retrograde spin of Venus without requiring the junking of all theoretical physcial models:


"We found that, due to the presence of the dense atmosphere, the rotation can only end in four possible spin states", Laskar told PhysicsWeb. Such planets can have either retrograde or 'prograde' rotation - that is, the west-to-east rotation commonplace in the solar system - and their rotation axis may or may not have flipped during its evolution. We know that Venus has retrograde rotation, but has its rotation axis switched? source


More creationist clap-trap.

This is the problem for the fundementalist, the Bible is static while scientific theory looks further into issues for a possible answer to the question.



On a side note you exceeded the allowable post size by a substantial margin making it impossible to work through the post in a way that would allow quoting. Show some courteousy and break future posts into smaller parts.








edit on 28-8-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 




The serious flaw in the arguement was that the Big Bang was an explosion, it was an expansion of space. Nothing 'blew up' or 'exploded', this is a typical creationsist arguement from the point of ignorance.


I would like to expound on this point, if you don't mind good chap. Might provide a...unique version of what the 'big bang' really was.

The origin of Spin, which is "The First Event", where two equal and opposite forces of pressure in motion, reacted at 90-degrees and began to spin, turning the random void, into a chain-reaction of interconnected energy fields, named the Flower of Life.

The Flower of Life depicts both the Tree of Life; and Sol-Aum-On's seal/hexagram, seed of life, etc.



Every time these pressure fronts impacted head-on, they reacted at 90-degrees to create spin, and spread into new dimensions. When these reached four dimensions, they started to become aware of their own structure, and upon reaching five dimensions, this system gained the ability to both be aware of itself, and to alter its path or progression, and this was the start of Free will, and the first consciousness, in whose image our minds are created, whom we call the one True God, creator of our Universe, which is His Physical Body (see large scale structure of universe and neurons).

Using the cosmic law of analogy, this can be proven by examining the sexual relations of the male and female energies. When two equal but opposites forces, male and female, come together and unite, they create life, a child. A physical representation of the macrocosm playing itself out in the microcosm.


'God' was never an anthromorphic entity; he was always a pure energy/vibration/frequency. That's why Christianity is so completely wrong.. They take that entire book way too literal when a great deal is allegory, metaphor, and etc.

Like Cain and Abel was really an allegory about when we became a predominately left-brained species..
edit on 28-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-8-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
2. Chemical Evolution

The Non-existence of the essentially needed population III stars

The Big Bang model requires the existence of Population III stars. What are Population III stars? According to the physics of the Big Bang, the only elements the Big Bang could have produced are hydrogen, helium, and possibly a trace of lithium, but no other metals. Anything atomically heavier than hydrogen and helium is considered a metal including, for example, oxygen. (Note: In this context astronomers use the term metal differently, not the way the term is used in chemistry). Therefore, the first stars of the universe could have been made only from hydrogen and helium, and these stars are known as Population III stars.

The stars we observe throughout the universe today all contain metals, such as Population I stars, which are metal-rich, and Population II stars that are metal-poor. Population I stars contain approximately 2-3% metals, they are found in the spiral arms or in the disks of galaxies. Population II stars, containing only 0.1% metal content in their light spectra, are observed around a galaxy halo, in globular clusters, and in the central bulge of a galaxy.

These designations became apparent from the stars' locations in the galaxy, space motion, and metal makeup. Stars produce the heavier elements by using successive stages of nuclear synthesis within their cores. According to the evolutionary theory of chemical enrichment, or how stars produce the heavier elements, those elements are spewed back into space through eruptions such as supernova explosions. In this way, later generations of stars that form are contaminated with heavier elements. Thus, according to evolutionary theory, the later that a star forms, the more metals that it ought to contain.

This means that if the Big Bang model were true, somewhere in the universe we should see stars without the spectral lines produced by metals. Moreover, because Population III stars are predecessors of all the observed Population I and II stars, vast numbers of them should have been identified long ago. But no such stars have ever been discovered; even the light from the most distant galaxies have metal lines in their spectra. Population III stars are essential for the Big Bang model, yet they have not been observed. Therefore, the Big Bang is not a plausible scientific model if something the theory requires is nonexistent.
source




searches for these [population III stars] and other MACHO's [Massive compact halo object] through gravitational microlensing have produced negative results. source


Without any proof that the existence of population III stars (which would be needed in large numbers what's more) then the idea that heavier elements than lithium (element 3 on the periodic table) formed from other naturalistic means is unsupported.

Another issue around this point is the observed remains of past star deaths (supernova explosions). The European Space Agency (ESA) says:

Because astrophysicists had inferred that the likely sources are mainly massive stars, which end their lives as supernovae, they could estimate the rate of such supernova events. They obtained a rate of one supernova every 50 years - consistent with what had been indirectly found from observations of other galaxies and their comparison to the Milky Way.
Integral identifies supernova rate for Milky Way


Dr Jonathan Sarfati says:

There are actually only 200 second stage SNRs [supernova remnants] observed in our galaxy! This is in the right ball park for Biblical creation, but is totally different from evolutionary predictions. Evolutionists at present have no answer to the problem of the missing supernova remnants.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati
(based on a paper by Keith Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, pp. 175–184, 1994.)


Hmmm, so the European Space Agency calculates that a supernova event will occur approximately every 50 years (other sources will says around every 30 years) in the Milky Way galaxy. It is surprising to find that only 200 odd supernova remnants are observed suggesting that the galaxy is no older than 10,000 years.
edit on 28-8-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution

Star Formation impossible from conventional physics

Although virtually all secular astronomers believe that stars form spontaneously, the physics behind this alleged process is riddled with difficulties. According to the standard model of star formation, stars form from a collapsing nebula. However, when gas is compressed, it heats up.(i) This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed. Furthermore, a collapsing cloud would spin faster as it collapsed.(ii) This is much the same way a skater spins up as she pulls her arms in. As the cloud spins faster, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull material in further: much as weights held at arm’s length are difficult to pull closer when one is spinning. Even if the star were able to form by pulling in the material, it would be spinning extremely rapidly. A small percentage of stars do spin rapidly,(iii) but most do not. The sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.(iv)

There is also a problem with magnetic fields. The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process “concentrates” the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further—much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star. Clearly, the secular view that stars can form naturalistically has some serious problems.

i) This follows from the ideal gas law. In physics notation, the law is written as P = nkT where P is pressure, n is the number density of particles, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T is temperature in Kelvins.
ii) This follows logically from the conservation of angular momentum.
iii) T Tauri class stars, for example.
iv) The sun spins even more slowly at its poles (taking over 30 days to rotate once); thus, it is constantly “twisting” itself. This differential rotation would not be possible for a solid object, but since the sun is gaseous, it does not need to rotate at the same rate at all latitudes.
Taking back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It (2011); Star Formation, p.85


(to be continued...)







 
14
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join