Fundy argument...

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-12-20 04:18am

Can someone give me a more detailed reply to the:

"If the Big Bang were true, all the planets should rotate the same direction!"

argument than:

"Why the fuck SHOULD they, idiot?!"

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-20 04:26am

Your response is valid.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-20 05:25am

In fact one could say that the response given is far more civil than they deserve.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-12-20 11:35am

Well the fundies are right, in a perfect solar system all the planets should come out with the same direction of rotation (angular momentum and all).

The major sticking point is the perfect solar system. Little things like planetary impacts, tidal forces, and transient gravitational forces (i.e. a asteroid moving out of the solar plane) have this nasty habit of ruining the simple modle.

I.e. Mercury and Venus are both slow, likely because of much stronger tidal forces from the sun (eventually the solar year will be exactly as long the solar day for every planet ... if the planets are still there). Venus, Uranus, Pluto are retrograde, currently thought to be the result of uneven planetary impacts (plus the whole whole origin of Pluto/Charon makes it hard to accurately predict).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-12-20 12:19pm

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:Can someone give me a more detailed reply to the:

"If the Big Bang were true, all the planets should rotate the same direction!"

argument than:

"Why the fuck SHOULD they, idiot?!"

"If Genesis is true, and God is perfect, all the planets should rotate the same direction!"

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2002-12-20 03:59pm

All sorts of universal debris would effect the rotation. Don't quote me on this i'm no expert on physics.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-12-20 05:51pm

If solid, planet-sized objects weren't formed until a time after the big bang, they may have just entered the sun't orbit in an opposite direction.

I'm guessing the fundie argument started with the same midset as the "something can't come from nothing" strawman.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-21 01:22am

Simple, the Big Bang theory isn't even valid for the disproving of God.The way it's described by science is accurate to God's actions.I believe pulsating waves or something, were discovered at a constant.These waves were in huge circles, which indicates something did occur.That's how science works, describing things and events as natural and in their physical form.Atoms, molecule, dark matter ect.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-12-21 07:09am

Priesto wrote:Simple, the Big Bang theory isn't even valid for the disproving of God.The way it's described by science is accurate to God's actions.I believe pulsating waves or something, were discovered at a constant.These waves were in huge circles, which indicates something did occur.That's how science works, describing things and events as natural and in their physical form.Atoms, molecule, dark matter ect.

Excuse me? Could you please elaborate on that?

Oh, and what has the Big Bang got to do with planet formation? Since billion of years had passed between the two events, and it's diferent phenomena.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-22 05:00am

Just read Priesto's custom title...

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-12-22 07:26am

Slartibartfast wrote:Just read Priesto's custom title...

That's the first thing I noticed!

I was just trying to see how far he was going with that post...

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-12-22 07:47am

If solid, planet-sized objects weren't formed until a time after the big bang, they may have just entered the sun't orbit in an opposite direction.

I'm guessing the fundie argument started with the same midset as the "something can't come from nothing" strawman.

IIRC when the planets were formed, with the first onse being the gas giants, the universe was already very old.

There are a million reasons why planets rotate another way.
Uranus, for example, is said to have been hit by a huge asteroid.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-22 02:15pm

The forming of planets have a lot to do with the beginning.But hey what do I know? I'm not too familiar with these seperate so called phenomena.Could you maybe explain how it's been decided that billions of years passd? I'd very much appreciate it.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-22 02:17pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:If solid, planet-sized objects weren't formed until a time after the big bang, they may have just entered the sun't orbit in an opposite direction.

I'm guessing the fundie argument started with the same midset as the "something can't come from nothing" strawman.

Could you explain this so called argument?

The Nomad · Post by **The Nomad** » 2002-12-22 02:33pm

Priesto wrote:The forming of planets have a lot to do with the beginning.But hey what do I know? I'm not too familiar with these seperate so called phenomena.

That says it all. You must not be familiar with many things save from the Bible.

Priesto wrote:Could you maybe explain how it's been decided that billions of years passd?

The correct word is "determined", not "decided".

Priesto wrote:I'd very much appreciate it.

No you wouldn't since you would neither want nor be able to understand the explanation.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-22 02:44pm

I ask an elementary question, yet you will not answer it

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2002-12-22 02:56pm

It's not being answered because you have a complete pattern.

1)Ask a question, trying to trap whomever you are targeting
2)Take their answer and make strawmen claims, even though you do not understand or attempt to.
3)Therefore, it is wrong

You are beyond reach. Someone may explain it to you, but that will just be so you shut up.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-22 03:17pm

SeebianWurm wrote:It's not being answered because you have a complete pattern.

1)Ask a question, trying to trap whomever you are targeting
2)Take their answer and make strawmen claims, even though you do not understand or attempt to.
3)Therefore, it is wrong

You are beyond reach. Someone may explain it to you, but that will just be so you shut up.

Why would I want to trap someone? Deception?no. Scientific fact is all I need from someone.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2002-12-22 04:02pm

Priesto wrote:
SeebianWurm wrote:It's not being answered because you have a complete pattern.

1)Ask a question, trying to trap whomever you are targeting
2)Take their answer and make strawmen claims, even though you do not understand or attempt to.
3)Therefore, it is wrong

You are beyond reach. Someone may explain it to you, but that will just be so you shut up.

Why would I want to trap someone? Deception?no. Scientific fact is all I need from someone.

The wall of ignorance in this one is powerful.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-12-22 04:10pm

Just for the record, if I remember correctly the universe was very hot at the beginning from the energy that was released in the big bang, so the atoms couldn't form up to solid objects. Lateron, it expanded, and cooled down.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-12-22 07:05pm

Adding to that: since the speed of light is constant, and we've measured objects at more than 15 billion LY away, hence the Universe had to expand since then, from whichever spot it it originated. And NO, we are NOT the center of the Universe. Anyway, one phenomenum (Big Bang) is different from the other (creation of the Solar System), it involves completely different energy levels, so to speak (I'm going to get caught with this one...), so it's not possible to correlate both phenomena.

Besides, for the planet to be spinnig in the opposite direction, requires it to be already a (more-or-less) solid object, meaning another few billion of years...

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-24 03:10am

Thanks for the info.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Fundy argument...

Fundy argument...

Re: Fundy argument...