I need some help guys...(Only those that are Biblically sound)

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
What the hell is the matter with you.
Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.
 
Upvote 0

arunma

Flaming Calvinist
Apr 29, 2004
14,818
820
39
✟19,415.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Why would you cuss? That doesn't seem like a Godly thing to do. Infact, I think you need to stop worrying about yourself. Athiest are going to hell, and if you think that isn't true, than you stand in direct contradiction of God's Word, and Jesus Christ himself.

Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.
 
Upvote 0

BigChrisfilm

Contributor
Feb 17, 2006
6,555
130
Portsmouth Ohio
Visit site
✟15,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Actually Jacob seems to be well aware of the fact that atheists are going to hell. I'm guessing that's why he objects to writing them off.
If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.
 
Upvote 0

JacobHall86

Calvin is 500 years old, Calvinism is eternal!
Apr 27, 2006
4,005
272
38
ATL
✟20,536.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
If, that is what he is saying, I agree. BUT, he should see that I opened a thread that asked others to go over there, and help me out, and he never asked me for the link.

You went with the wrong intentions, and I knew the website.

Also, you seem to be more upset in the fact that I said the word Hell than the fact that people are dying and going there. Get off your soapbox.
 
Upvote 0
B

Bleach4Blood

Guest
Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...

(Quote)
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

[link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
(End Quote)

I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
The key failing of the site as a whole is the author’s repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.

His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.

Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.

Examples follow.

1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.

2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.

3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitler’s "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...

4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)

5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.

6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.

7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.

8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between inappropriate content and obscenity).

9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).

10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.

11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.

12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.

13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".

14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).

15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...

16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.

17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.

Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Regarding the yecheadquarters site reccomended by BigChrisfilm...

(Quote)
I found this site, that exposes the purpose for their site.

[link to yecheadquarters site removed by me]

Don't go to that site unless you understand that they have posted many of things they say, but they are un-edited.
(End Quote)

I really don't think that site should be recommended to anyone. Not that the various FSTDT quotes and images are so bad in and of themselves (blasphemy aside), but rather the severely damaging image the YECH site's creator gives of Christians across the board.
An inability to comprehend both direct statements and sarcasm is only the beginning of his/her problems.
The blatant and obvious twisting of the facts he/she uses, and the fact that the quotes he/she selects are more convincing in many cases that his/her own comments upon them don't help much either.
The key failing of the site as a whole is the author’s repetitive tendency to use all the misquoting/out of context quoting/incomplete statements and twisted meaning techniques he/she accuses the FSTDT posters of.

His/her Hitler fascination is quite disturbing to boot, even though the vast majority of the comparisons put forward on the site don't stand up to a first glance, never mind careful consideration.

Really, that whole site is quite an embarrassment to Christians.

Examples follow.

1. 2nd page, picture 1. Clearly a "no Mormons please" logo, not Christian related at all.

2. 2nd page of the site, the "Klansmen" picture is a statement of tolerance, not the alleged anti-Semitic statement.

3. 3rd page, Image 1. Claims that atheists are trying to censor the bible, based on one humorous image with no element of censorship (though a strong element of blasphemy). Given the amount of fringe Christians around demanding that schools remove large lists of books from libraries... Well, this isn't going to be a strong arguing point for any Christian group. Note the extremely laboured link to Hitler’s "control the textbooks" quote, and consider in reference to the above fringe elements...

4. 3rd page, last image... This is somehow proof that evolution is satanic? Evolution may be. I don't much care. But nothing here proves or even suggests anything of the sort)

5. 4th page, opening. The author declares (out of nowhere) that evolutionists want to ban God. The somehow extrapolates from this to "Evolutionists want to kill all Christians". This level of paranoia benefits no-one.

6. 4th page. An un-attributed quote saying that science is the search for natural solutions. This is extrapolated to say Christians are banned from science. Not sure how he makes that one work, even if that were a genuine definition of science.

7. 4th Page, "Stop using Jesus as an excuse" image and interpretation. This is actually a perfectly valid statement, crudely and questionably phrased. There is a problem with various groups using our Lord as a blanket justification for their own hatreds. The interpretation on this site however somehow reads it as claiming all Christians share these hatreds. The word "conform" is used in the sites interpretation, and then used to string together another non-existent link to Hitler.

8. 5th page in total... Blasphemous images abound. However the reading into these that these "evolutionists" want homeland security to fail... The author here displays a complete lack of logic and an inability to reason. (He/She is also unaware of the difference between inappropriate content and obscenity).

9. 6th page, opening images. The mockery here is of Young Earth Creationists, not God. (Was the earth created 6000 years ago or 60 Billion years ago? Why would we really care? Those touched by the spirit will have faith, those not, can't. No-one is saved by semantic and/or scientific arguments).

10. 6th page, the table of quotes. Every single quote is out of context. Most are clearly sarcastic in nature. The author either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the arguments being made. While none of this justifies the statements made in these quotes it does leave the author very, very far out on a limb when he/she makes similar points about FSTDT.

11. 6th page, last image. A nasty, nasty image, but the authors claim that this is an admission that the FSTDT crowd get inspiration from Nazis is pure gibberish.

12. 7th page, first part. Blatant twisting of the statements, and deliberate miss-understanding expressed in the blue commentary weaken the site still further.

13. 7th page second part. Obviously biased and loaded questions. No actual desire to ask about the site, and several blatant lies disguised as questions. Very much along the lines of "So, brother, do you still beat your wife?".

14. 8th page, opening. Clear and chronic failure to comprehend written English in the opening paragraph (no claim that Christians are virii is made) and the concept of humour in the Doonesbury (which cannot be attributed to FSTDT anyway).

15. 8th Page, closing paragraph. Irrational claim that inventions of scientists who are Christians should be denied to/refused by "evolutionists"... No rational explanation for this one at all...

16. 9th page. Somehow it is determined that referring to a webpage (FSTDT) for material for a trashy radio show indicates the medias support and fervent belief that the page in question is inviolate truth... No. I don't get it either.

17. 9th page, closing paragraph. Apparently radio is now an abomination because Hitler used to use it, and anyone using radio is just like Hitler.

Whoa... rather longer than expected. Sorry for the large blodge of text.

That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

A who is search should give the host to that site.
 
Upvote 0
B

Bleach4Blood

Guest
No, Ikester, really, I don't like your site. Please take the time to read my message and look at what you have claimed and written. As you have done here, you ignore the reality of the situation and say whatever springs to your mind. This is the sort of thing which harms Christians and Christianity.

Why not do it right, and criticize them on genuine issues? If you must quote them and answer them quote and answer what they actually say. Not what you want them to say. I took the time to "proofread" your site and gave a detailed listing of the problems and weaknesses within it. The least you could do, from common courtessy, not to mention honesty, is actually read it yourself and honestly answer as to your sites core integrity and honesty.
 
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟23,538.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Also, you are trying to tell me that in any frame of reference, all of the other galaxies out there will look like they are moving away from us? Even if we were to look from another galaxy's point of view?


Yes.

If you want to see how this works, there is a 2-dimensional analog to this.

Take an uninflated ballon, and put some little stickers on it. Make them small stickers, as you'll want to put several on it. Distribute them all around the balloon. These stickers are the "galaxies" on the 2-dimensional "universe" defined by the surface of the balloon.

Now, begin inflating the balloon and notice that the space in between all of the stickers is increasing. Imagine now that you are a 2-dimensional inhabitant of one of the sticker "galaxies", and you're looking out at all the other sticker galaxies. What would you observe? That all the other stickers are moving away from you.

Turn the balloon around, and now pretend you live in a different galaxy, and ask yourself the same question. Are all the stickers moving away from you? Yes. Choose any sticker anywhere on the balloon - and you'll come to the same conclusion.

Keep inflating the balloon and see how the stickers keep separating farther and farther apart. And note that no matter which sticker you pretend to be living in, you always make the same observation - all the other stickers look like they're moving away from you.

Now, it should be pretty obvious that the motion of the stickers away from one another is a result of the space in between stickers expanding - that is, you're literally adding space between each of the sticker galaxies.

Now, ask yourself this question - where is the center of this expansion? If you're the inhabitant of one of the 2-D sticker galaxies, you might incorrectly come to the conclusion, "I'm at the center, because everything radiates away from me." But you'll notice that's clearly wrong - because you could have said the same from any other sticker galaxy, not just one in particular.

The actual center of expansion is not anywhere on the surface of the balloon - the center, you can probably already guess, is actually in the center of the balloon, somewhere in the interior where all your air is. But, that is a third dimension - the surface of the balloon comprises only 2 dimensions, but the interior plus the surface comprise 3 dimensions.

Thus - this is a two dimensional universe expanding in three dimensions.

How is this analogous? Although it is nearly impossible for our minds to actually envision this physically, we live in a three dimensional universe expanding in four dimensions.

This "fourth dimension" is not the "time" dimension as envisioned by Einstein, but a fourth spatial dimension that we, as 3 dimensional creatures, are incapable of observing physically.

And that's how our own universe expands. Space, literally, is increasing between galaxies. It is also expanding between stars, between planets, between individual atoms, etc.

However, the rate of this expansion on less than a galactic scale is so small as to be nearly insignificant on that scale. Even between nearby galaxies it is fairly small, and the individual motions of galaxies (by gravitational attraction) may be greater than the spatial expansion. For example, the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest full-size galaxy neighbor, is actually observed as moving toward our galaxy. The space between these two galaxies is small enough, and the relative motion of the galaxies toward each other great enough, that we observe this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arunma
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟23,538.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
RealityCheck, clearly you are well versed in physics!

Alas, I provided Richard with the balloon analogy a few weeks ago, and he doesn't believe it for some reason.


He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?
 
Upvote 0

arunma

Flaming Calvinist
Apr 29, 2004
14,818
820
39
✟19,415.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
He doesn't believe the analogy is valid, or he doesn't believe the balloon will actually behave exactly as stated?

Given that every point in the universe can be called the center of the universe, he doesn't recognize the meaninglessness of selecting the earth's reference frame as special. Richard is a geocentrist (in case you didn't notice already). He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravity, yet believes that general relativity somehow validates his geocentric beliefs. I don't think he knows that general relativity also predicts the proper orbit of the earth around the Sun.

I told him earlier that if he believes that the earth is the center of the universe, then it is impossible for him to believe in gravity. He doesn't believe me, maybe you can convince him though.
 
Upvote 0

spiersdodgerblue

Senior Veteran
Jan 31, 2007
2,701
230
✟18,939.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why fret, It's called free choice, God given free choice. I say let them have there den. With all that they read it's not like seeeds are not being planted, whether roots take or not, this is in their court now. Those who are in the faith just keep on being faithful here on the boards and let them take what they want and leave the breaking down of the hardening of the hearts to God.

And of course always be praying for the unsaved!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RichardT

Contributor
Sep 17, 2005
6,642
195
34
Toronto Ontario
✟23,099.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
. He implicitly denies the Newtonian theory of gravity
In the book "Geocentricity" by Gerardus D. Bouw, Bouw explains that it wasn't Newton's plan to invalidate any place in the universe as special, or something like that, it's been a long time since I've read it, I'd have to quote it to you.

"
Common Misconceptions
It is generally believed, without evidence, that in the geocentric model the sun, moon, planets, and distant stars all orbit the earth once per day. There is no orbiting involved. What is happening is that the firmament is rotating. Now the nature of the firmament is such that it defines all the physics of the universe, both the local and the universal, protophysics (Chapter 11, page 116). This means that all the “laws” of physics are part and parcel of the firmament and that the firmament acts like a medium for the laws of science. So it is that in a geocentric model the sun, moon, and stars do not gravitationally orbit the earth daily any more than that a molecule in a top gravitationally orbits the center of the top. In the case of the spinning top it is the fibers and material of the top which carry the molecules around the axis of the top. By the same token, in the geocentric model it is the fabric of the firmament which carries the universe about it. A second common misconception is related to the first and that is that the geocentric universe requires that the sun orbit the earth once per year. Again, this is not the case. In a geocentric universe Newton’s (or Einstein’s) laws must be fulfilled just as in a heliocen-tric universe. Newton’s law of gravity states that from the sun’s perspective, the earth must be seen to revolve about it once per year. It matters not to the sun whether the earth actually does so or appears to do so; remember that we are talking about relative motion, not absolute. If the firmament were to possess a wobble (about which we will say later) which carries the sun, planets, and stars about the earth once a year in such a way that the earth seems to describe an orbit around the sun, then the sun and the universe are content that the law of gravity is being satisfied. Remember,the physics of the universe which specify the law of gravity is fastened to the firmament, not the earth or sun. A third misconception is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.This argument means that if the stars and planets are further away than Saturn, they would be moving faster than the speed of light in their daily motion about the earth. There are two problems with this statement. First, the daily motion is one of rotation, and relativity (which dictates that the speed of light is a speed limit) is said not to apply to rotation. This is claimed because relativity cannot account for the Sagnac effect, an effect which violates relativity’s postulate that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. More practically, though, relativists maintain that in a spinning universe the gravitational field increases as one goes further and further from the axis of rotation. Relativity allows that it is the gravitational field which dictates the speed of light in any part of the universe. Thus the further one goes from earth, the faster the speed of light in a rotating universe. But the true resolution is this: the laws of physics, including any laws about a speed limit, are defined relative to the firmament. It is not the case that the universe is rotating once per day inside the firmament. On the contrary, the firmament does the rotating and the bodies of the universe seldom go much faster relative to the firmament than a few hundreds to a few thousands of miles per second, far, far below the speed of light. Hence, if the speed of light (3x10 10 cm/sec or 186,272 miles per second) is a speed limit in the universe, it is so only relative to the firmament. Because of its tremendous mass and density compared to the material universe, it is a small thing for the firmament to rotate once a day. For rotation, there is no problem with violating the speed of light, even at the most remote edge of the universe. The last misconception we shall look at now is the one which claims that the laws of physics should be different in a geocentric universe than in a heliocentric universe. Time and time again this has been shown to be false. What this misconception claims is that phenomena such as the Foucault pendulum, the stationary satellite, the flight of ballistic missiles, indeed, the very equations on which the space program is based must be different in a geocentric universe. This is the very misconception which Ernst Mach tried to counter in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To understand this, think of it this way. Imagine a non-rotating coordinate system fastened to the center of a spinning globe in the middle of a room. Imagine that somewhere in the room there is a basketball player standing, dribbling a ball. Initially, even though the globe is spinning, the coordinate system is not spinning and we describe the motion of the ball mathematically in terms of the coordinate system attached to the globe. Now imagine that the coordinate system starts spinning with the globe. It should be intuitively obvious that the behavior of the basketball and player is not affected by whether or not the coordinate system is spinning. In other words, just because some imaginary coordinate system is spinning, one cannot claim that the ball should bounce back up, away from the player’s hand. This is the case claimed by Mach and the geocentrists. Geometry is an imaginary concept and cannot be allowed to dictate the physics as a function of the coordinate system. Yet there are those who insist that a geocentric universe must give a different physics. Unwittingly they argue that the behavior of the basketball is different in a spinning coordinate system than in a non-spinning one. Those subject to this misconception have assumed that the coordinate system, the geometry, is the ultimate reality instead of a language used to describe reality. This is the ultimate reality of Plato, but is wrong and borders on idolatry."

-Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw
 
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟23,538.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Please source evidence of this.


Link to basic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_expansion

Some specifics:

Observational evidence
It was not until the year 2000 that scientists finally had all the pieces of direct observational evidence necessary to confirm the metric expansion of the universe. However, before this evidence was discovered, theoretical cosmologists considered the metric expansion of space to be a likely feature of the universe based on what they considered to be a small number of reasonable assumptions in modeling the universe. Chief among these were:
To varying degrees, observational cosmologists have discovered evidence supporting these assumptions in addition to direct observations of space expanding. Today, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, the properties of the universe which scientists have tested and which can be observed provide compelling confirmation. Sources of confirmation include:

  • Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law") as predicted by a universal expansion.[2] Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogenous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
  • In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales in much the same way a Jackson Pollock painting looks lumpy close-up, but more regular as a whole.
  • the isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
  • The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems. As reported by a group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory, the radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[3] Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.
Taken together, the only theory which coherently explains these phenomena relies on space expanding through a change in metric. Interestingly, it was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne).
Additionally, scientists are confident that the theories which rely on the metric expansion of space are correct because they have passed the rigorous standards of the scientific method. In particular, when physics calculations are performed based upon the current theories (including metric expansion), they appear to give results and predictions which, in general, agree extremely closely with both astrophysical and particle physics observations. The spatial and temporal universality of physical laws was until very recently taken as a fundamental philosophical assumption that is now tested to the observational limits of time and space. This evidence is taken very seriously because the level of detail and the sheer quantity of measurements which the theories predict can be shown to precisely and accurately match visible reality. The level of precision is difficult to quantify, but is on the order of the precision seen in the physical constants that govern the physics of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

RealityCheck

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2006
5,924
488
New York
✟23,538.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
richardT - Regarding geocentrism and Bouw's work:

If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). An idea that is not falsifiable may be true, but it is not a scientific theory.

However, while many parts of General Relativity have been shown empirically to accurately predict certain phenomenon, such as "gravitational lensing of light", the theory has also been shown to have some major holes in it - most notably, its predictions conflict with the predictions of quantum mechanics, and QM theory has shown to be a better model, again through empirical evidence. The most damaging prediction of general relativity is the prediction of "singularities", which are not possible in quantum mechanics. Much of the current work in these fields is centered on reconciling the two theories, and no satisfactory solution, as yet, has been reached. M-theory is the most promising of the newest theories that resolve these difficulties.

But back to what the above quote says. Science can only deal with ideas that can be falsified - that is, we can devise a real experiment that produces results that either support the theory or discredit the theory. If something is not falsifiable, then it is not science.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that "not falsifiable" is the same as "not false." It merely means that the truth or falsehood of a statement, idea, or whatnot cannot be verified by any known means. Intelligent Design, for example, has the same problem. It posits that an Intelligent Designer must exist - however, the existence of such a designer cannot be verified or disproven. Nor has any experiment been devised that would show or deny the existence of such a designer. Therefore, I.D. does not qualify as "science."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sister_maynard

Senior Veteran
Feb 20, 2006
3,144
111
✟18,882.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's is because you are defending FSTDT. First post too. Glad you love my site. The one you made such a long post about. Did not know you cared so much that you would take so much time and effort :D .

Also, if so many don't like the FSTDT site, all you have to do is find out who the host is. Go to that website and look at there service agreement (rules) with their customers. And what kind of rules they have for content, and promotion of attitudes. And you will find that FSTDT breaks about 3 of them. So file your complaints.

A who is search should give the host to that site.
If you're going to hint at things then go ahead and put the information up, carefully explaining exactly what you're trying to say. Your site is well-intentioned, but it's riddled with logical fallacies. Someone gave you a nice explanation of how you could strengthen your position; blow it off if you like, but clinging to weak arguments is just silly.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.