Jump to content


Photo

Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

geocentric heliocentric ptolemy copernicus center

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#101 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 April 2018 - 05:27 PM

"Science is a specific process of discovering the unknown, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and the knowledge accumulated through that process."
Yes, I am quite familiar with the definition of Science. Trust me...

THEREFORE

We can safely THROW OUT the Fairytale of Evolution AKA (SLOW Microbe to Microbiologist) as far as any kind of scientific endeavor and
instead put it in the category of Religion or Philosophy BECAUSE the Fairytale of Evolution does NOT CONFORM to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD


Clearly, you don't know the definition of science. Science simply means "knowledge", or "what is known", it is not a method. :rolleyes:


"Clearly, you don't know the definition of science. Science simply means "knowledge", or "what is known", it is not a method."


Well.. YOU wrote this didn't you?

"Science is a specific process of discovering the unknown, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and the knowledge accumulated through that process."

AND..


From post # 71 to a suddenly very short of memory Goku..

Goku said..


"Science by its' own philosophical limits can only entertain natural explanations"

Blitzking answered..

"Baloney... that is wrong and you know it..

Science CANNOT have "Philosophical limits" but SCIENTISTS and Gokus sure can.. And do..

Blitzking added..

"Science has ZERO to do with philosophy and simply means "Knowledge" or "What is known".


OUCH... This was a bad one.. Dont worry.. Your self inflicted wounds will heal soon..

#102 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:26 PM

 

 

 As i have indeed shown to all without a doubt amougst us, The stars do indeed literally 'Sing' aloud praising God all day, everyday, just as indeed His 'Word' says so. And as we know without a doubt that all light is indeed a literal frequency or Hertz lol as is all things seen and unseen. 

Yes, and as I have shown, it takes some 17 million years for just ONE cycle of that "sound" to reach us.  How long do you think it would take for a song? 

On they contrary piasan, here again you seem to have the inability to take your, mine, and the entirety of human auditory system out of the equation. As it is indeed fully known that dogs have a far advanced auditory ability and indeed even bats use high frequency detection called Echolocation or (sonar) for hunting food, flight etc. God obviously, not only has the capacity to literally hear us but also the unfathomable amount of ALL frequencies, hertz, tones, which ever one any would wish to call or reference.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with out ability to audibly detect such low frequencies.  The note given was one note lower than 57 octaves below middle C.  The time required for one cycle of that note does not depend on auditory ability.  It's simply  time = 1 / frequency.  At the stated frequency, it will take more than 17 million years for one cycle of that "sound" to be completed.

 

Songs are made of multiple notes and each note will be some number of waves.  At the frequency given, just one sound wave will take over 17 million years.  Rounding off to 18 million for convenience sake ..... in a 6,000 year old universe, there would be enough time for about 1/3000 of a single wave .... let alone a note.

 

I ask again .... How long do you think it would take for a song?

 

 

So as all can see here, piasan you indeed literally borrow the invention of a man made concept and try to somehow weave it into the Biblical Scriptures. You Sir are indeed sorely hoodwinked and or sorely misleading. Which 'Black Hole' type might you be inferring by the way?

I'm not the one trying to borrow the measurement made of a "sound" and "weave it into the Biblical Scriptures"  That honor goes to you.

 

What I have done is evaluate the note given in the article you cited and determine how long it takes for one cycle near the stated frequency.  This has nothing at all to do with Scripture.  Again, the linkage to Scripture is entirely yours.

 

As to the "black hole type" ..... it would be the one referred to in the article cited by you.

 

 

 

I hadn't "connected the dots" between the frequencies of black holes and the "singing" of the stars mentioned in the bible.  It does nothing to change the billions of years to thousands so it's pretty much irrelevant to the issues I have with YEC. 

Umm.... Of course it does. But 1st and indeed foremost try and removed this misguided worldview you have adopted and try learning things from Gods point of view, by which if we indeed claim 'GOD' and his Bible or 'WORD' then all Christians can understand all things in accordance. I plead you all not rely upon man made 'WILD' hypothesis and vast theories to try to refute Gods 'WORD', authority and Dominion. It will be well with all if you 'HEED' this message!

In other words your suggestion is that I should ignore what I can walk out in my yard and see with my unaided eye right now and just believe.

 

If all Christians "understand all things in accordance" why are there so many denominations of Christianity?

 

I don't need "'Wild' hypothesis and vast theories."  A simple walk outside and look at the sky will do.



#103 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:05 PM

 

 

 

Blitzking: I am sorry.. I just don't have the ability to to process this kind of thinking.. It is way too advanced for me.. I am just a farm boy from Illinois...

The word "Science" means "KNOWLEDGE" or "what is KNOWN". 

So you are saying that Evolution, which is KNOWN to be FALSE, Is the BEST Scientific Explanation???

I believe that the word you are looking for to describe evolution is NOT Science. But this word instead..

 

( don't be so hard on farmboys my lad!) ;)

 

When I say that evolution is the best scientific explanation, it's just that I am saying that as an objective statement, rather than how it is usually meant by evolutionists. When evolutionists say it, they really mean something like this, "evolution has the backing of science, is uncontested, is backed by the science mainstream who find no fault, it is confirmed and correct", etc, etc.....I myself just mean that it is the best science argument of how we get a creation. (As in "the best science can offer, as an explanation of a creation creating itself by process")

 

In other words, it is no different to my mind, that saying this;

 

"The best maths explanation for why you divorced your wife is that 2 add 2 is 4."

 

The problem is, it is inappropriate to say that this would be a reason for divorce as the reasons for separation, aren't mathematical

 

In the same way we see all of the evidence of design and creation and order in the universe, so then, yes - technically speaking the best methodologically natural explanation if that is a better way of putting it, is that it evolved, but the problem is the reasons for miraculous levels of design aren't scientific. The best science explanation is evolution, the correct explanation is that God created.

 

But the endeavour of saying, "let us try and explain it scientifically/naturally" in and of itself, is what science usually does. I'm not against that as such, I just think science can't take you that far, personally. Like Goku said, it's limited, because it's like having only one tool in the tool box. They have basically just made a decision of belief and will, to basically accept a science explanation, for everything. I believe that is the true fault underlying evolution, because the evidence of design is better explained by a designer.

 

 

 

"The best science explanation is evolution, the correct explanation is that God created."

 

I guess we will just have to leave it alone as we are separated by a very large Atlantic

ocean and terms, phrases, and meanings may differ due to our being isolated from each

other.. However, I will leave it at this....

 

The best PSUEDOSCIENTIFIC or METAPHYSICAL explanation for man's origins is evolution, the correct explanation is that God created.

 

The best SCIENTIFIC Explanation Based on what we KNOW and what we OBSERVE ( Design on a very high level,) whenever WE OBSERVE DESIGN WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DESIGNER (Without Exception)  which means that Man's Origins MUST HAVE HAD a supernatural Intelligence Agent / Designer as our Causation.. Which... is the BEST SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION!!

 

 

If we DIDNT KNOW that these stones were carved by Men (Creative Intelligence Agents / Designers) Would the "Best Scientific Explanation" be that Wind, Rain, Time, and Erosion were the Causation of such design? :gigglesmile:    NO NO AND A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!   But The best PSUEDOSCIENTIFIC or METAPHYSICAL explanation would be!!

 

:topic_closed:

 

 

7138-2.jpg



#104 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:16 PM

piasan, I humble now, ask of which part or parts of the Biblical Scriptures you hold literal and which part or parts do you hold as mere just a so so story? Not meaning the stars singing because i do believe iv'e proved that beyond any possible doubt that would hold up in any court of true law. Also Obviously not scripture which clearly is parable ect. Or perhaps if you, and any atheist whom would wish to chime in by all means do so, believe in the actual 'WORD' of GOD (and indeed i mean literally the utterance of) could most literally have the creative power to do such, as actually and literally having the ability to Create anything? 

First: I have no intention of going thru the Bible verse-by-verse.  There have been a number of Theistic Evolution discussions and I'm not going to start another one at this time.

 

Second:  Lessons delivered in symbolic terms are not mere "just so" stories, nor are they "lies" as many YEC like to complain.

 

There are things in the Bible that would leave evidence.  A 6,000 year creation is one of them.  In this case, the evidence would be a 6,000 light year event horizon.  Instead, the event horizon is more like 13.8 billion years.... a distance 2.3 million times greater than we should be able to see. 

 

This isn't a small problem.  It is the issue that caused me to question a literal Genesis.  As such, it is also the first question that will need to be addressed.  I've been watching for a solution for over 50 years now.... Creationist scientists haven't done very well.

 

Finally, as to the creative power of God.  He is fully capable of:

1)  Creating the universe over 13.8 billion years using the processes described by science as His creative tools.

2)  Creating the universe and everything in it in six literal days some 6000 years ago.

3)  Creating the universe last Thursday and merely creating us will all our memories intact.

 

You and I would probably reject (3) for the exact same reason ..... It would make all of God's creation a lie.  A deception.  God is not deceptive.  This would be contradictory to the very nature of God.

 

The difference is that I reject (2) for the same reason I reject (3).



#105 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:44 PM

 

YEC has a lot more trouble with science than just evolution.  In fact, I can't think of a single discipline of science that YEC is in agreement with.
Interesting selective blindness you have... Are you including Known Biogical Decay Rates of Red Blood Cells and Soft Tissue found in Dinosaurs?. OR, HOW ABOUT Carbon 14 content in Dinosaurs? LOL.. Sorry... I will pretend those don't exist and you are right so you can feel better about yourself... Yes.. You are right Piasan!! (There I hope that helps)

Well, one of us has selective blindness.

 

Biological decay rates are known to vary by factors in the thousands due to multiple external environmental factors.  Nuclear decay rates have been tested and found to be immune to significant change .... at least below temperatures of 200,000,000 K.  I don't think there is a need to spend much time on what will happen to matter at 200,000,000 K other than to point out the sample will probably be destroyed.  

 

I've asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response....

Why do you consider biological decay rates more reliable than nuclear decay rates?  (Or, why should I?)

 

Of the 20 or so radioisotope dating methods Carbon-14 is the most problematic.  The biggest problem being that we are on a planet that is literally covered with carbon based life forms.  There are a dozen or so other more reliable nuclear dating methods that return ages in the billions of years.

 

Blitz has also pretended the evidence didn't exist when he was presented with a paper showing many "carbon dead" mammoths.

 

I've also asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response .....

Why do you consider Carbon dating more reliable than the many other radioisotope dating methods?  Why should I pretend those don't exist?



#106 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:17 PM

 

 

YEC has a lot more trouble with science than just evolution.  In fact, I can't think of a single discipline of science that YEC is in agreement with.
Interesting selective blindness you have... Are you including Known Biogical Decay Rates of Red Blood Cells and Soft Tissue found in Dinosaurs?. OR, HOW ABOUT Carbon 14 content in Dinosaurs? LOL.. Sorry... I will pretend those don't exist and you are right so you can feel better about yourself... Yes.. You are right Piasan!! (There I hope that helps)

Well, one of us has selective blindness.

 

Biological decay rates are known to vary by factors in the thousands due to multiple external environmental factors.  Nuclear decay rates have been tested and found to be immune to significant change .... at least below temperatures of 200,000,000 K.  I don't think there is a need to spend much time on what will happen to matter at 200,000,000 K other than to point out the sample will probably be destroyed.  

 

I've asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response....

Why do you consider biological decay rates more reliable than nuclear decay rates?  (Or, why should I?)

 

Of the 20 or so radioisotope dating methods Carbon-14 is the most problematic.  The biggest problem being that we are on a planet that is literally covered with carbon based life forms.  There are a dozen or so other more reliable nuclear dating methods that return ages in the billions of years.

 

Blitz has also pretended the evidence didn't exist when he was presented with a paper showing many "carbon dead" mammoths.

 

I've also asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response .....

Why do you consider Carbon dating more reliable than the many other radioisotope dating methods?  Why should I pretend those don't exist?

 

 

"I've also asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response"

 

Well, whatever you do, Please don't interpret my silence to mean that I

DONT HAVE a response to give you! (I have plenty, don't worry about that)

 

I am sure you can figure out the rest for yourself. You are pretty smart!

 

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied,

will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy

and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)



#107 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:06 PM

 

 

Interesting selective blindness you have... Are you including Known Biogical Decay Rates of Red Blood Cells and Soft Tissue found in Dinosaurs?. OR, HOW ABOUT Carbon 14 content in Dinosaurs? LOL.. Sorry... I will pretend those don't exist and you are right so you can feel better about yourself... Yes.. You are right Piasan!! (There I hope that helps)

Well, one of us has selective blindness.

 

Biological decay rates are known to vary by factors in the thousands due to multiple external environmental factors.  Nuclear decay rates have been tested and found to be immune to significant change .... at least below temperatures of 200,000,000 K.  I don't think there is a need to spend much time on what will happen to matter at 200,000,000 K other than to point out the sample will probably be destroyed.  

 

I've asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response....

Why do you consider biological decay rates more reliable than nuclear decay rates?  (Or, why should I?)

 

Of the 20 or so radioisotope dating methods Carbon-14 is the most problematic.  The biggest problem being that we are on a planet that is literally covered with carbon based life forms.  There are a dozen or so other more reliable nuclear dating methods that return ages in the billions of years.

 

Blitz has also pretended the evidence didn't exist when he was presented with a paper showing many "carbon dead" mammoths.

 

I've also asked this many times now, but have never gotten a response .....

Why do you consider Carbon dating more reliable than the many other radioisotope dating methods?  Why should I pretend those don't exist?

 

Well, whatever you do, Please don't interpret my silence to mean that I

DONT HAVE a response to give you! (I have plenty, don't worry about that)

 The record shows otherwise. 

 

Either way, every time you bring these up as if I hadn't already discussed them, I'll point out you have been given my answer many times and the ball is in your court.



#108 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 16 April 2018 - 11:28 PM

LOL Good Night. Very busy but shall be back a.s.a.p. Yeshua Yahweh Bless all my Christian Brothers and Sisters :icon_deadhorse:   :putertired:  :yoda:



#109 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 17 April 2018 - 04:02 PM

The Axis of Evil, why the name and what does it really mean? With all due respect this topic would require so much detail, that i must make a laymen's presentation. I can't bear all the proper 'jargon' commonly associated with the explanations given us by those much smarter than myself, let alone the common layman. 'Axis of Evil' was the shocking term for the modern cosmology thought that the earth was the center of our universe. Hence we are in a very special place and are a very special life form. Modern cosmology is based upon the notions of the Copernican Principle. Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Mathematicians and Physicist have all mostly claimed they had  most assuredly proved this Copernican Principle and was upheld to be a scientific fact. This is why it has been taught and presented as fact through our government operated public school systems the world over (for the majority). And subsequently this line of thought established the fundamental worldview that we are merely a non unique, miniscule speck of dirt out in the outskirts of an accidental mishap from some great unknown, or 'Big Bang'. But lo and behold, we have now, by means of scientific methodology learned this long held 'belief' or one could in reality plainly say this 'faith' has been thoroughly dispelled. This blatantly shows those whom retained 'faith' in this worldview passed on in utter ignorance. I personally believe this came about, and has continued, by and from mans own stubborn faith that he alone could explain through rationale, logic and reason the universal, cosmological formations of all things. But yes indeed in reality there was no such truth to this notion nor any truth to this worldview.Those whom continue to postulate this pseudo-scientific ideology such as the likes of Neil degrass Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku and other like minded religious followers. Have been demoted to the rank and files of mere jesters upon the worlds stage. The scientific facts from the CO.BE satellite, W.M.A.P., Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellites all have confirmed the secular scientific communities worst fears in regards to our unique and special place in this, our universe. The secular paradigm for modern cosmology has been utterly crushed into the annals of fairytales from whence it came along with other fabrications of our human minds constructs.



#110 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 17 April 2018 - 04:57 PM

 

piasan, I humble now, ask of which part or parts of the Biblical Scriptures you hold literal and which part or parts do you hold as mere just a so so story? Not meaning the stars singing because i do believe iv'e proved that beyond any possible doubt that would hold up in any court of true law. Also Obviously not scripture which clearly is parable ect. Or perhaps if you, and any atheist whom would wish to chime in by all means do so, believe in the actual 'WORD' of GOD (and indeed i mean literally the utterance of) could most literally have the creative power to do such, as actually and literally having the ability to Create anything? 

First: I have no intention of going thru the Bible verse-by-verse.  There have been a number of Theistic Evolution discussions and I'm not going to start another one at this time.

 

Second:  Lessons delivered in symbolic terms are not mere "just so" stories, nor are they "lies" as many YEC like to complain. You misunderstand me here. I take the 'WORD' most literal, this was in reference to those of whom take the metaphors and analogies as "just a so so story" as you and others readily seem to say of the Creation account and of how God made us humans in his own image. God is not a baboon nor a chimpanzee nor is God any type of dinosaur nor is he any form of worm, fish, bird, goat, wolf etc. etc. etc.. Do all Theistic Evolutionist now proclaim God as being the likeness of any other than we HUMAN BEINGS!!! There is absolutely NO WIGGLE room of this most literal statement! I have never known any YEC say nor imply any such notion personally.

 

There are things in the Bible that would leave evidence.  A 6,000 year creation is one of them.  In this case, the evidence would be a 6,000 light year event horizon. Exactly what supposed so called event horizon may you be in reference to piasan, please do tell.... Is it perhaps merely yet another man made fairytale that was brought about to help bolster a dying theory?? Stephen Hawking has put forward a new theory about black holes in a paper posted online, which says event horizons – the gravitational pull that makes escape impossible - do not exist.

Speaking to Nature magazine, the renowned physicist said that in classic theory, there is no escape from a black hole. Quantum theory, however, allows "energy and information to escape".

He said that, to explain this process, a theory must merge gravity with other forces of nature: "The correct treatment remains a mystery."

In his paper on the University of Cambridge website, Hawking has proposed an "apparent horizon" that "temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them", Nature said.

Entitled Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes, Hawking attempts to solve the black hole paradox that was first discovered by physicists from the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara two years ago.

In their paradox, they looked at what would happen if an astronaut fell into a black hole. They found that under quantum theory, the astronaut would be burned to a crisp – not float iunaware of their fate until they are pulled in and crushed in the black hole's dense core, as had previously been assumed.

This posed problems because it went against Einstein's general theory of evolution, which says the laws of physics are identical everywhere in the universe. His theory would say an event horizon would be an "unremarkable place".   Instead, the event horizon is more like 13.8 billion years.... a distance 2.3 million times greater than we should be able to see. I would indeed be remiss if i not in addition mention 'IT'S ALL MADE UP"!!! Just another satanic deception postulated by all whom hope the God whom created them, Yea the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, indeed my God, is not really there!!

 

This isn't a small problem.  It is the issue that caused me to question a literal Genesis.Well piasan we have indeed found some common ground here, at least on this point that quote "This isn't a small problem." You Sir are in fact 100% correct here!!! You questioning the 'Word' of God because of this???? PIASAN WAKE UP!! Sir, have you indeed been deceived by this utterly ridiculous and well woven nonsense???   As such, it is also the first question that will need to be addressed.  I've been watching for a solution for over 50 years now.... Creationist scientists haven't done very well. Well sir I do believe I have indeed not only addressed your impediment but i have most assuredly crushed it back into the oblivion from whence this stench arose!! Piasan, be ye NOT DECEIVED!! It is a FAIRYTALE!!

 

Finally, as to the creative power of God.  He is fully capable of:

1)  Creating the universe over 13.8 billion years using the processes described by science as His creative tools. Nonsense, utterly and 100% nonbiblical.....

2)  Creating the universe and everything in it in six literal days some 6000 years ago. Ding, Ding, Ding we have the only possible Right answer...

3)  Creating the universe last Thursday and merely creating us will all our memories intact. Ummm,, please i thought we not to delve into utter absurdities........ Piasan, Sir there are NO other universes you are not another piasan that is 1 of a possible thousands in another invisible universe. We indeed merely receive 1 singular shot at this life, so let us make it to Yeshua Yahweh whom made us.....

 

You and I would probably reject (3) for the exact same reason ..... It would make all of God's creation a lie.  A deception.  God is not deceptive.  This would be contradictory to the very nature of God.

 

The difference is that I reject (2) for the same reason I reject (3).

 

Now flee be gone from this nonsense......



#111 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 17 April 2018 - 06:18 PM

I do rather feel the need to further explain myself, as it seems some have implied me to be in support of that which i point out. I believe as the 'Word' of God says our reality is. I do not believe in the dozens of supposed blackholes modern scientist say they have found in the middle of the milkyway lol. And may i add these clueless scientist say there could be tens of thousands of them also indeed in the milkyway!! HAHAHAHA.... I personally find it all rather best fit and suited to retain these sci-fi inventions in their movies and their minds. I believe all these more modern theories are brought about by mans unwillingness to conform to Gods parameters which he alone set in motion. Everything other is merely a fanciful construct of which is used by that foulest of all to deceive man into believing a lie rather than submit themselves to God whom brought them into existence. This foulest of all things has a sole purpose and that is indeed to destroy Gods Greatest creation by confusion and to manipulate, distort, doubt God and by whatever other means possible to achieve these ends.

Isaiah 5:13
 

“Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.”

Hosea 4:6
 

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” 


  • Blitzking likes this

#112 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 18 April 2018 - 07:57 AM

Indeed atheist and T.E.s should be very weary as to post supposed and assumed scientifically established facts. As indeed i have a trove of research at my fingertips ready to crush the paradigm of the secular worldview!! You would best be served if you would merely open those Biblical pages of our inspired forefathers whom steps we tread upon. And come to reckon with the truth of our being. Do not fall to the whims of those whom postulate for falsehoods and fairytales of their own minds constructs. For indeed if you chose to do so you will be as sheep being lead with noserings, securely fastened to have your minds swayed like the winds being blow to and fro into an ever far reaching land of desolation. Being left destitute of knowledge and wisdom and found double minded, being indeed just as the finality of Darwinian Delusion ends require you to be. Have they indeed not told you that you are merely aimless blobs of sophisticated, unguided mishaps with absolutely no purpose other than mere copulation? Be not so ignorant, being found lacked of any true knowledge and wisdom. Go now, "Come let us reason together" God ask of you personally....  What ring of brass could you find worthy to place upon your brow, for most assuredly it shall crumble under the weight of its self if it a crown given you from man....



#113 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 April 2018 - 12:06 PM

 

 

Goku, the entirerty of 'My' views can indeed be found in the Biblical pages of 'The WORD' and alone in those pages by which instruct, mandate, nourish, comfort etc. etc. etc. i rely.

 

I am not familiar with the part of scripture that addresses Einstein's theory of relativity. Which verses are those? Goku, https://creation.com...iverse-and-god  Here we can gain insight upon Einsteins influences and how these influences influenced his worldview and latter theory At age 11 he went through an intense religious phase during which he ate no pork and composed songs to God, which he sang to himself on the way to school.4

From age 12 Albert read popular books on science, taught himself algebra, geometry and calculus, and studied Immanuel Kant’s anti-theistic Critique of Pure Reason. Concerning this time in his life, Albert later wrote, ‘Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic (orgy of) [sic] freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. … It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of … an existence which is dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.’Pais, A., Einstein Lived Here, Oxford Uni. Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 114–15, 1994 Hopefully this will enable you to gain a more thorough mental picture of Alberts process into the void....

Einstein’s belief in ‘the divinity of nature’

Pantheists believe that everything is God. It means that ‘God’ just becomes another word for ‘everything’ and loses any real meaning—saying that everything is ‘zinquth’ is just as meaningful. Albert Einstein explicitly shared the pantheism of Spinoza, of whose views The Hutchinson Softback Encyclopedia, 1996, writes: ‘Mind and matter are two modes of an infinite substance that [Spinoza] called God or Nature, good and evil being relative.’ Like New Age and Eastern thought, this is a ‘monistic’ belief, which explicitly denies a Creator in the normal meaning of the word, i.e. one who pre-existed (and is thus independent of, or ‘outside’) that which was created. Goku, so as we can see it was Albert himself whom had the problem with God. As we can clearly see here 

Einstein and ‘God’

Albert Einstein was not a Christian. He had no concept of the God of the Bible or trust in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. His views on religion and ‘God’ were evolutionary and pantheistic.

He wrote,‘I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.’22

‘The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. … The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events. … A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him … .’23

‘During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image. … The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. … In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God … .’’24

  1. Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, New York, NY, USA, pp. 36–39, 1954. Return to text
  2. Ref. 23, pp. 46,

 

 

 

I really don't see how Einstein's view of religion plays into whether or not we should accept his scientific theory of relativity. I would think things like the eclipse of 1919, observation of gravitational lensing, the fact that GPS works the way it does, the decay pattern of muons in the atmosphere, and so on is a much better gauge to go on.

 

Goku, My personal view of relativity is that it is not all true some of it is and indeed some is not. Let me return i just now received an inquiry that demands my attention. But indeed i shall return a.s.a.p.

 

Okay, what parts do you accept and which parts do you not accept?

 

From my view, you like that you can choose your reference point when doing physics problems so you can make Earth the center. I think this is a self-defeating strategy; relativity says that there is no preferential point of reference so you can choose any point besides Earth and it would be just as valid. Other than that, you don't seem to like any other part of relativity that I have seen.

 

You don't like black holes which is a direct consequence of space itself bending as described in GR. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have taken issue with length contraction, which is the other side of the coin to time dilation (whether something is experiencing time dilation or length contraction depends on the frame of reference), and this is an integral part of SR along with the speed of light being a constant in all frames of reference which you take issue with. If you don't like the core of either special or general relativity, what is left for you to accept?

 

Indeed atheist and T.E.s should be very weary as to post supposed and assumed scientifically established facts. As indeed i have a trove of research at my fingertips ready to crush the paradigm of the secular worldview!!

.......

Be not so ignorant, being found lacked of any true knowledge and wisdom. Go now, "Come let us reason together" God ask of you personally....  What ring of brass could you find worthy to place upon your brow, for most assuredly it shall crumble under the weight of its self if it a crown given you from man....

 

 

Please enlighten me, how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter?



#114 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 18 April 2018 - 01:11 PM

 Goku, Posted 18 April 2018 - 02:06 PM Please enlighten me, how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter? Goku, you indeed are in conjunction with wibble a long time ago. You Goku have not been keeping up with the conversation or you do not understand the physics equations or you failed to go thru the evidence i provided on page 2 here with the entire physics equations provided. You add zero sir. Your points are indeed rather mute. 



#115 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 April 2018 - 05:08 PM

 Goku, Posted 18 April 2018 - 02:06 PM Please enlighten me, how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter? Goku, you indeed are in conjunction with wibble a long time ago. You Goku have not been keeping up with the conversation or you do not understand the physics equations or you failed to go thru the evidence i provided on page 2 here with the entire physics equations provided. You add zero sir. Your points are indeed rather mute. 

 

Okay, so where in the 14 pages of the article you posted explains any of those three things? Better yet, you can explain those things to us uneducated evolutionists in language we can understand.



#116 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 18 April 2018 - 08:29 PM

 

 Goku, Posted 18 April 2018 - 02:06 PM Please enlighten me, how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter? Goku, you indeed are in conjunction with wibble a long time ago. You Goku have not been keeping up with the conversation or you do not understand the physics equations or you failed to go thru the evidence i provided on page 2 here with the entire physics equations provided. You add zero sir. Your points are indeed rather mute. 

 

Okay, so where in the 14 pages of the article you posted explains any of those three things? Better yet, you can explain those things to us uneducated evolutionists in language we can understand.

 

The entirety of the paper is all connected lol. Goku that means the entire of the post, indeed every bit of it lol. Hence it is why it's been posted :gigglesmile: and in layman's terms IT"S 100% accurate lol. 1 thing i have come to gather from reading many of your post back to 2015 here, is that regardless of what anybody post you turn your head to it lol. Such as when Calypsis4 showed you the evidence regarding the Dome of the rock Lights that descended down upon it. So this shall be consequently no different. Perhaps if piasan wishes he can walk you through it all step by step and personally inform you as to the language of each series of equations in each formula, as each formula uses its own letters to represent equations all it's own lol http://astronomyonli...e/Formulas.aspNow here is a place for you to get started with your education Goku....... Oh, and indeed your welcome :gotcha:  Now there are only about 26 to know for you to get started. But as stated this is a good start for you to learn the basics lol. Much more when you are finished with that in ummm..... lets say a min of six solid months of study.....



#117 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 April 2018 - 09:42 PM

The entirety of the paper is all connected lol. Goku that means the entire of the post, indeed every bit of it lol. Hence it is why it's been posted :gigglesmile: and in layman's terms IT"S 100% accurate lol. 1 thing i have come to gather from reading many of your post back to 2015 here, is that regardless of what anybody post you turn your head to it lol. Such as when Calypsis4 showed you the evidence regarding the Dome of the rock Lights that descended down upon it. So this shall be consequently no different. Perhaps if piasan wishes he can walk you through it all step by step and personally inform you as to the language of each series of equations in each formula, as each formula uses its own letters to represent equations all it's own lol http://astronomyonli...e/Formulas.aspNow here is a place for you to get started with your education Goku....... Oh, and indeed your welcome :gotcha:  Now there are only about 26 to know for you to get started. But as stated this is a good start for you to learn the basics lol. Much more when you are finished with that in ummm..... lets say a min of six solid months of study.....

 

 

So it is impossible for anyone to summarize what the 14 page paper says? That's a little hard to believe. I am not going to read 14 pages when you can't even tell me what I am reading or what I am supposed to be looking for that would either support your position or answer my straightforward questions.

 

If Piasan wants to summarize what the paper says that is his prerogative, but it is your paper and rightly your burden to explain in minimum detail how it relates to your world view. Why should I spend any time on this when you refuse to entertain even the most basic questions about it?
 



#118 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 18 April 2018 - 10:17 PM

 

The entirety of the paper is all connected lol. Goku that means the entire of the post, indeed every bit of it lol. Hence it is why it's been posted :gigglesmile: and in layman's terms IT"S 100% accurate lol. 1 thing i have come to gather from reading many of your post back to 2015 here, is that regardless of what anybody post you turn your head to it lol. Such as when Calypsis4 showed you the evidence regarding the Dome of the rock Lights that descended down upon it. So this shall be consequently no different. Perhaps if piasan wishes he can walk you through it all step by step and personally inform you as to the language of each series of equations in each formula, as each formula uses its own letters to represent equations all it's own lol http://astronomyonli...e/Formulas.aspNow here is a place for you to get started with your education Goku....... Oh, and indeed your welcome :gotcha:  Now there are only about 26 to know for you to get started. But as stated this is a good start for you to learn the basics lol. Much more when you are finished with that in ummm..... lets say a min of six solid months of study.....

 

 

So it is impossible for anyone to summarize what the 14 page paper says? Impossible??? lol Umm... ok  :rotfl3: That's a little hard to believe. Now this is hard but that's why some people have to do it lol if not they (The world) would look at it as a foreign language and that is what it actually is like lol. I am not going to read 14 pages when you can't even tell me what I am reading :think: Goku i even gave you a free educational site for your pleasure and your education lol or what I am supposed to be looking for that would either support your position or answer my straightforward questions. Goku i did answer your straight forward question precisely how you wished for me to answer it lol in LAYMAN'S terms lol hence quote "and in layman's terms IT"S 100% accurate lol."

 

If Piasan wants to summarize what the paper says that is his prerogative, but it is your paper and rightly your burden to explain in minimum detail how it relates to your world view. I indeed have accomplished that lol... I am not responsible for your nor anyone's education. Goku  now i was nice to even provide the proof you and others ask for and i even, in a recent post here gave a most coherent yet brief explanation on the exact meaning of e=mc2 lol just this small equation took me almost a paragraph to do so lol. Why should I spend any time on this when you refuse to entertain even the most basic questions about it? When one deals with any cosmological and or astronomical math there is indeed  absolutely NOTHING basic about it lol. It's your personal choice to blow it off if you wish. Not my responsibility for you cosmological and or astronomical math lessons Goku. I can only provide you the water as Calypsis did but indeed we cannot force any to drink lol...... Further more you seem to obviously have absolutely no problem excepting the other equations for Einsteins GR and or SR yet you are obviously head over heels in a postulate for it, something you admit you do not have a clue about lol!! As i stated earlier 'It's truly the blind leading the blind"!!
 

 



#119 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 April 2018 - 11:09 PM

Saying "it's 100% accurate" is not a layman's explanation, it is a bare assertion. All you have done is post the paper and demand that we all read it. I am not asking you to provide the equivalent of an advance semester course on the math/physics involved, just a basic summary of how the paper you cited supports your position; wasn't it Einstein that said if you can't explain things simply then you don't really understand it to begin with? Tell you what, pretend that I understand what derivative and integral calculus is and that I'm familiar with the equations in your astronomy-online link, can you give a short summary of how your paper supports your position now?



#120 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 19 April 2018 - 10:06 AM

Saying "it's 100% accurate" is not a layman's explanation, it is a bare assertion. All you have done is post the paper and demand that we all read it. I am not asking you to provide the equivalent of an advance semester course on the math/physics involved, just a basic summary of how the paper you cited supports your position; wasn't it Einstein that said if you can't explain things simply then you don't really understand it to begin with? Tell you what, pretend that I understand what derivative and integral calculus is and that I'm familiar with the equations in your astronomy-online link, can you give a short summary of how your paper supports your position now? Is it not written in the paper iv'e cited lol?? Well of course it is all you need is to read, to not wish to read it you hereby conform to being willfully ignorant Goku, not dissimilar from me explaining e=mc2. All one need do is actually read. That is indeed the problem the masses usually see and are utterlly confounded and say "Umm Yeah that looks right" lol. Hence It is not any of my problem you wish not to read. Just as i stated you take the astronomical and cosmological equations for granted obviously. If you do indeed know the terms and understand the equations then all any need do is READ!! Go to the last few pages Goku and READ!! I do not care 1 iota what the long esteemed Einstein says lol nor you nor anyone else. All you and any need do is READ!! It gives you a summation or conclusion GO READ IT!!! LOL Wake up Goku i am not required to READ for you lol :topic_closed:  :gilligan:  :icon_deadhorse:  :yoda:  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users