Scientific errors in the Bible

The thread is now dead but I had a discussion with TC concerning the olive branch, if anyone wants to take a peek. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=27&p=19------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan:
Then why do we have birds, snakes, insects all of very similar structure on every contenant? Did they all evolve independantly of each other?

---

Insects popped up in the Devonian (410-360 mya), reptiles in the Carboniferous (360-286 mya), birds in the Jurassic (208-146 mya). Pangea began to split around 180 mya. See the overlap? Various -zoicsPangea------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
It is based on the Genesis account, which we believe is supported by scientific evidence.

---

And do you have some of this evidence?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
Sure. Check out my new post in the Evolution section titled "The Big one."

​

---

That isn't really evidence of the Genesis account.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
You find the Population thing funny, eh?

---

You are right. The population figures you propose aren't funny. Ridiculous, yes. Funny, no.You've created a straw man, and killed it. Congrats!Populations do not grow at a constant rate and sometimes they decrease. Ever heard of extinction? In the case of homo sapiens, mDNA studies show a bottleneck around 100k ago for one. Our species nearly went extinct. We were down to a few thousand. You've ignored pretty much all of the factors that control population-- food supply and disease. You've made something of nothing.

quote:

---

As for the sun, what is it powered by? It is obviously burning something. What? Last I heard, Space is not flammable.

---

You have got to be kidding me. You haven't even bothered to research basic solar physics?

quote:

---

Even if the sun shrinks at a rate of five feet a year, it would still have been past the 'Comfort Zone' of Earth's orbit. Think about it! Ever heard of Entropy? things get smaller and colder. A Brand new sun would have been bigger and hotter. A 4.6 Billion year old sun would have been Even bigger!

​

---

The sun does not expand, or contract, at a constant rate. Try learning about the stellar life cycle.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
I am aware of much evidence which is claimed to support heliocentricity, but I am also aware of claims that the same evidence is in keeping with the geocentric model proposed in the Bible.

---

What evidence and how is it in keeping with geocentrism?

quote:

---

What I have been unable to find is proof of the supposed falsity of geocentricity.

---

Ok. Define geocentric. I know this seems like an inane question but humor me. I can create a mathematical model showing that I never move, that instead the whole universe moves around me. Essentially, this is what astronomers did pre-heliocentrism-- until the math became so complex as to be absurd. Are you proposing something like this?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Ok. Define geocentric.

---

​

Geocentricity is the concept that the earth is located at the geometric and gravitational center of the universe.

---

So the two are the same then?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
So the two are the same then?

---

​

According to the geocentric model, both the geometric and the gravitational center of the universe coincide with earths locality within the universe.

---

That is very interesting because the two do not have to be the same.How does one test this theory, since the Earth is definitely not the gravitational center on any scale that we can measure?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
If you are of the same mind as these two, please inform me of what tests you have performed and explain how their results prove that the geocentric model is false.

---

Well, we observe the smaller thing to orbit around the bigger thing (or about the common center of gravity, more accurately) The moon orbits the Earth, the moons of Jupiter orbit Jupiter. We can point a telescope at these things and watch. In every case that we can observe, this is what we see. So why would we bet against all that observation and think that the much much much bigger thing orbits around the much much much smaller thing?And secondly, the math doesn't work with geocentrism.

quote:

---

since the Earth is definitely not the gravitational center on any scale that we can measure?

​

There are those who would disagree with you.

---

oooo.... scary cryptic. Why not name names so we can all have a look?

quote:

---

What proof can you provide for this statement?

---

hmmmm... tie a golf ball to a bowling ball and throw them like a bolo. Note which orbits the other.The light thing orbits the heavy thing, right? Lets say the less massive orbits the more massive. This is measurable in the lab.Well, Earth is smaller than the Sun. Add up all the mass in the solar system, factor in its distibution and you get an center of gravity that is definitely not the Earth.The same can be done with the galaxy. By far the most massive area is the galactic core and we are far from it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coragyps:
I'm new here - so Hi!

---

Howdy,I'm in Texas too.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
We should probably have a vote. At this point I am not sure if its (a) with some yet-to-revealed-in-all-its-irrefutable-glory demonstration of a multi-centric solution, or (b).

---

c) follows from either a) or b) so I am going with c) too.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Can you tell me why the planetary orbits are eliptical?

---

The early solar system was chaotic. The planets formed from dust and debris. Planetoids smashed together and fused, or chipped off bits of one another. This messy transfer of momentum isn't likely to produce a circular orbit. Circular orbits are, in fact, quite tricky to produce. All of the variables have to be just right-- velocity, direction, altitude, etc. Elipticals are less tricky.Even today the gravitational interactions of the planets would prevent a planet from keeping a perfectly circular orbit. In other words, a circular orbit would get screwed up by the gravitational tugs of the other planets.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joetate18please:
I have to disagree. I believe the way the planets are orbiting and their design and structure is not from a few bumps and bangs just "happening".

---

Why? There is nothing magical about the structures of the planets or their orbits. It can all be explained, more or less.

quote:

---

When was the first bump?

---

Sometime before the clouds of gas condensed. Why does this matter?

quote:

---

When did the first life organism appear?

---

What does this have to do with planetary orbits and origins?

quote:

---

AND HOW?

---

How did life get started? No one has a clear answer at the moment. What does this have to do with planets?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I wonder if you've considered what your position does to knowledge in general?We have two alternatives ( for the sake of argument ) 1) Heliocentrism and 2) Geocentrism. Why do we choose one over the other? We choose the more simple explaination-- easy enough. Easy enough. Now consider the position that you are taking, that even though the math of geocentrism is vastely more complicated it may still be correct. Now generalize. Any answer, however convoluted, to any question, could be true. We can't tell the difference. I can make any bizarre claim and if allowed an unlimited number of hems and haws, I can force it to work. If this is allowed every idea rests on equal footing.I expect you to no longer debate any topic as we can no longer come to the truth of anything. Thanks.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I am not saying that geocentric "may be correct."

---

Yes, you are, actually. You are saying we cannot tell. That, by default means 1) heliocentrism may be correct, 2) geocentrism may be correct, 3) neither-- ie., some other option. You apparently choose #3, but you can't, because we cannot tell.

quote:

---

To do so would make the same error that started this thread.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

If you wonder what a GC universe is like, look around. If you wonder what an HC universe is like, look around.

---

You've completely missed the point. I won't argue that, from Earth and with limited equipment, the universe appears to rotate around us. This would be the case from any other planet or arbitrary location in space.The point is that we choose between the coordinate systems based upon the simplicity of the explaination if we use a heliocentric solar system model and the enormous complexity of the explaination if we use the geocentric model. If simplicity is not considered then any string of ad hoc statements stands on equal footing with every, any, and all explainations. In other words, we lose the ability to distinguish true from false. You say gravity. I say invisible aliens push down on our head. You say medicine. I say God's will via the action of angels. There is no way to distinguish. Sure, your explaination may require five sentences and a conclusion, and mine may require 100,000 imagined magical entities, but it doesn't matter. Everything stands toe to toe.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com