|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific errors in the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6097 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
What is the probability that one will develop an eliptical model of the solar system through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote: As has been said two or three times now, an elliptical orbit is what you would expect. Gravity works in such a way (inverse square law, and all that Newton stuff) that ALL orbits are conic sections: circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola. These differ mathematically only in their eccentricity: exactly zero, between zero and one, exactly one, and greater than one, respectively. I would venture to say that a true, really, honest-injun circular or parabolic orbit has yet to be found in all the universe: when orbital mechanics will allow any value, why stick with 0.000000000000000000000000? And the earth's eccentricity varies quite noticeably over time, anyway: this year it goes from 0.016725 to 0.016715 before August even gets here!If you vary "exactly zero" at all, it ain't a circle any longer. An orbit that was truly circular would be a temporary freak occurence. [This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6097 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
What is the probability that this eliptical model developed through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe will attribute to the other planets eliptical orbits around the sun of the same eccentricity as we currently observe in their orbits?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Their eccentricities as of 2003.0, or of some other epoch? They change continuously, you know. And what difference does it make exactly what Uranus's orbital eccentricity is anyway??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Laboo Inactive Member |
Don't you think possibly that when it says "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet", so it's saying four legs, then they have legs above their feet, two more? I mean I know that's shallow what I'm saying, but possibly it could mean 6, don't stoop so low as to think that you have the right to act like you know what the bible means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote:Hi, Laboo! Is that really what you meant to say? Who's supposed to interpret what it does mean for us, if not us ourselves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
For w fortenberry, from Roy Bishop's article on "Orbital Motion" in the Observer's Handbook 2003 of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada:
"According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravitation is not a mysterious force that one mass exerts upon a distant mass; gravitation is the geometry (non-Euclidean) of the 4-dimensional spacetime within which we and the stars exist. Golf balls (if air friction is ignored), satellites, planets, and stars follow geodesics, the straightest possible, force-free paths through a spacetime whose geometry is shaped by mass-energy. The difficulty in intellectually grasping a non-Euclidean spacetime originates with us. Common sense is inadequate. This is not surprising, given that our common sense is based on the Euclidean, 3-dimensional geometry of straight lines, rectangles, and spheres we learned in the crib by age 2."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Breonharte1 Inactive Member |
Why does everyone believe that the Flood was global? What if it were regional? What if, since humans did not spread over the Earth until after the Flood, they had to stay in one region for a long time. So, why not flood only that region? What use would it have been to flood Antarctica, if no one worth punishing lived there, since on one lived there period?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
here is one good reason.
something that was mentioned (IIRC) in the scriptures is that the highest mountain in the areas was covered by water. The only way that is possible is if the whole world has been covered such that the water could retain its height.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Arachnophile Inactive Member |
"Don't you think possibly that when it says "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet", so it's saying four legs, then they have legs above their feet, two more?"
It is entriely possible that God meant to say that insects have six legs, but why not spell it out??? I mean, surely he knows what an insect looks like and does not need to be mysterious about it? The most interesting part of your reply is this passage, however:"...don't stoop so low as to think that you have the right to act like you know what the bible means" Who has the right to act like they know what the Bible means? People who agree with your interpretation??? This is creationist-religious arguing at its best! The Arachnophile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Unashamed Inactive Member |
In reply to point #2:
The fact that the hare doesn't chew cud would have been obvious to the ancient Isrealites. The hebrew word "arnebeth" is translated as "hare" because of the problem that many translaters feel (or felt) that they must equate all animals mentioned in the bible to animals existing today. Many animals have become extinct since the old testament was written. There is no reason to equate the words "arnebeth" and "hare". P.S. If you get a chance, please expand upon your claim that "There are many, many more examples of how scientifically wrong the Bible is..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
unashamed can you provide evidence for what type of animal this creature could have been aside from being a Hare?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tamijudah Inactive Member |
in message 2 Q... states that there is a guy who belives insects servived during the flood. But it say in Gen. 7:22 that all living things died. I just wanted to let that person know what the Bible says even though i am a evolutionist. Let me know your imput. thanks
------------------tami judah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lcswoosh Inactive Member |
lol silly theists!
in the bible itself it says God is a word, and God created the world true to his word...yet no matter can be created or destroyed and he defies his own law that he says he DID create the world with? lol ok that my own attempt to sound scientific but i'm no good. -------------------Adam |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024