|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific errors in the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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 -zoics Pangea ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And do you have some of this evidence? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That isn't really evidence of the Genesis account. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: You have got to be kidding me. You haven't even bothered to research basic solar physics?
quote: The sun does not expand, or contract, at a constant rate. Try learning about the stellar life cycle. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: What evidence and how is it in keeping with geocentrism?
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So the two are the same then? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: oooo.... scary cryptic. Why not name names so we can all have a look?
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Howdy, I'm in Texas too. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: c) follows from either a) or b) so I am going with c) too. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Why? There is nothing magical about the structures of the planets or their orbits. It can all be explained, more or less.
quote: Sometime before the clouds of gas condensed. Why does this matter?
quote: What does this have to do with planetary orbits and origins?
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: Agreed.
quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024