Celtic Heroes

...while the people arguing here may be smart we are not scientists.

...while the people arguing here may be smart we are not scientists.

I am a scientist in training. Just throwing that out there.

Regarding the verses, only psalm 148:5-6 even comes close to what the first law says... and that is by a VERY loose interpretation. The full version being:
1 Praise the Lord from the heavens;
praise him in the heights above.
2 Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his heavenly hosts.
3 Praise him, sun and moon;
praise him, all you shining stars.
4 Praise him, you highest heavens
and you waters above the skies.
5 Let them praise the name of the Lord,
for at his command they were created,
6 and he established them for ever and ever—
he issued a decree that will never pass away.

That is not really a prediction and by reading that, I would not know it could be applied to the first law of thermodynamics without someone pointing out similarities. The sun, the moon, stars (more suns...), etc are not exactly eternal but I guess you are saying this establishes the idea that things can be eternal?

Now, regarding those points, only the magmatic water and oil pressure relate to geological processes. However, I will reply to all of the since the solutions are relatively simple.

1: interplanetary dust:if the universe was billions of years old there should have been 54 feet of dust on the moon when we landed. Instead there was only an eighth of an inch to 3 inches of dust. This would take less than 8000 years to stack up.

No, completely incorrect. You have to understand that there are thousands of factors that could affect the amount of dust (and other materials) on a celestial body and any pattern that exists is always subject to change. Other debris could impact the moon, leaving materials behind or taking some with it if it escapes the moon's gravity. Debris with a large enough gravitational field could even take away dust from the moon or the moon can take dust from other objects, etc etc.

2: juvenile water: when volcanoes erupt, some if the material they send up is water. To produce all the water that is in our oceans, lakes and streams it would have taken only 340 million years. This means that 340 million years ago there would be no oceans. But what is funny is that evolutionists tell us that 340 million years ago it was the age of the fishes. See a problem? Also the popular idea of the origin if life tells us that the oceans were full of water at least 2000 million years ago.

No, while this is a geological process, there is another process that encompasses the movement of water: The water cycle. Not the rubbish middle school or high school version but the complete map of water movement in the biosphere. Water goes in the atmosphere, deep underground, disperses to form other molecules, and so many other places. Even if the ocean only took 340 million years to form, which I have not really verified yet, it would cycle everywhere since water molecules are constantly forming and breaking apart.

3: Comets: when a comet passes the sun some of its matter is blown away. Because of this comets will eventually disintegrate. Because of this all the short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10000 years. Yet there are still up to 5 million comets still in our solar system. This makes it look as if the solar system is about 6000 years old.

Uh, the universe does not simply stand still. Things are constantly moving, bumping into each other, colliding to form a larger mass (creation of our planet), etc. The amount of comets in our solar system is really no way to measure the age of anything.

4: Oil pressure: over time an oil deposit will lose its pressure because even the densest rocks are porous. If oil deposits were there for more than 5000 years, all the pressure would be gone. And yet there is still tremendous pressure in the oil deposits.

Ok, this one is simple. First, fossils really do not give any indication for the age of the planet especially when we have strong indications that lead us to know the Earth was uninhabitable for a few billion years. Next, even if a very tiny amount of pressure is lost through various pours, crude oil is organic matter that is still decaying and will produce gas. Hence the build up of pressure in the first place. Whatever loss there may be for pressure, the creation of gas may offset if not overcome it which probably, as mentioned before, led to the build up.

Every cause has an effect but obviously you must have an uncaused first cause. If god did not create them, then how did the atoms get there?

Lol, do not get carried away picking at all these scientific ideas. I could ask the same thing about creationism: If God created the universe, what created God? We both would not know the answer to either question but the difference is, we continue to modify our understanding of such complex ideas through investigation with science. The answer for creationism will always be "God did it" and there are no more questions after that.

The explanation for how different atoms were created is part of the Big Bang. See the following wiki link and look at the beginning of the overview. Basically energy was converted and transformed to create different types of matter through various cosmological/astronomical phenomena. That is the very simplified version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Um... no, I wasn't leading to the second law at all, I was talking about the first. Where did the energy come from? Now, usually this is where people avoid the question and counter with: where did god come from? That is exactly the point of a god: it contradicts the first law. Our universe's existence is a contradiction of its own law.

Um... no, I wasn't leading to the second law at all, I was talking about the first. Where did the energy come from? Now, usually this is where people avoid the question and counter with: where did god come from? That is exactly the point of a god: it contradicts the first law. Our universe's existence is a contradiction of its own law.

Well, my apologies. I did not realise the question was so short and simple. :/

However, I still hold that neither of the laws are contradicted for the reason of their domain: this universe. All of the laws in physics apply specifically to this universe (more specifically the known universe). Anything outside of this universe, from before the Big Bang to a point where the universe may end, is not observable or measurable in any way. There are theories of no time, no space, different universal constants, etc; which would immediately mean the laws are simply have a bounds, not that they are contradicted.

Now, I will counter with an idea regarding god, or rather, religion. I can accept that I truly do not know. However, rather than claim it was divine creation, I seek to find out myself. Religion would say " (a) God did it" and that is the end. Even you (only my impression) seem to believe that god is the universal contradiction to everything difficult to explain and then that thinking reaches a standstill. The same standstill known as the Dark Ages.

Now I know you do not follow any specific religion or specific collection of scripture but I would also like to again point out that such scripture is also at at standstill. It does not develop in any way and the only way it continues is through creative interpretation. So my point, whilst opening up a person's mind to the possibility of a different level of existence, does not the belief in a god provide unchanging answers that inhibit humanity's advance?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

That man obviously has a religious agenda because evolution is as close to a scientific fact as things get.

That my friend, is not a quote made by me, it was by a scientist, Molecular biologist to be exact, so it has no 'religious agenda' as you claim.

Even evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”

With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. My use of the term mythology is perhaps a little harsh.

I would not be understood to speak ill of scientific effort.... It is only that somewhere among these seeds and beetle shells and abandoned grasshopper legs I find something that is not accounted for very clearly in the dissections to the ultimate virus or crystal or protein particle. Even if the secret is contained in these things, in other words, I do not think it will yield to the kind of analysis our science is capable of making.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”

I ... copied and pasted ... I'm ... one of the mindless misguided people who believe ... what some old gold digging religious leader tells me to believe.

Ok firstly: if god is eternal and all-powerful as Christians believe, then there is no reason to believe that He would be bound by the laws of His universe.

Second: the dark ages was a time when the majority of people were catholic. They believe in God but are not Christians. They believe that you can earn your way to heaven through works you cannot. It says so specifically in the Bible. Christians believe that we were saved through faith. The Catholics back then made the mistake of taking the words of theologians over the words of God. Also they held to the old sciences such as taught by archemedes and discouraged experimentation. Then the reformation came which if i remember correctly was a return to true Christianity and this is about where the dark ages ended.

Third: ok vraelen i have to be honest. This part about the bible inhibiting humanities advance is pure nonsense. Many of the greatest scientist in history have been christians(Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and Robert Boyle are only a few of multitudes). Also if you have noticed, as evolution developed and began to take hold, the world began to fall. The bible tells us how to live and if you have noticed, when people live how the bible tells them to, they usually live a happier life. Many successful scientist even today believe in God; no i would argue that it is evolution that is keeping us from advancing.

About the geologic clocks: the whole point of juvenile water is that it is juvenile; it has never seen the outside before. I do get what you are saying but the water i am talking about is water that has not come up before.

Um... no, I wasn't leading to the second law at all, I was talking about the first. Where did the energy come from? Now, usually this is where people avoid the question and counter with: where did god come from? That is exactly the point of a god: it contradicts the first law. Our universe's existence is a contradiction of its own law.

Well, my apologies. I did not realise the question was so short and simple. :/

However, I still hold that neither of the laws are contradicted for the reason of their domain: this universe. All of the laws in physics apply specifically to this universe (more specifically the known universe). Anything outside of this universe, from before the Big Bang to a point where the universe may end, is not observable or measurable in any way. There are theories of no time, no space, different universal constants, etc; which would immediately mean the laws are simply have a bounds, not that they are contradicted.

Now, I will counter with an idea regarding god, or rather, religion. I can accept that I truly do not know. However, rather than claim it was divine creation, I seek to find out myself. Religion would say " (a) God did it" and that is the end. Even you (only my impression) seem to believe that god is the universal contradiction to everything difficult to explain and then that thinking reaches a standstill. The same standstill known as the Dark Ages.

Now I know you do not follow any specific religion or specific collection of scripture but I would also like to again point out that such scripture is also at at standstill. It does not develop in any way and the only way it continues is through creative interpretation. So my point, whilst opening up a person's mind to the possibility of a different level of existence, does not the belief in a god provide unchanging answers that inhibit humanity's advance?