Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

[Subduction Zone]

We have our spirit and it can commune with God but God also speaks through his word.

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

You close yourself off so hear nothing.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

No, just because the Bible says something is rather meaningless. You need to prove your claim with reliable sources. The Bible can be abused to support almost any claim so it is not of much use in a debate when one says "the Bible says this".

So do you have anything besides abuse of your holy book?

 

[coffee4u]

No, just because the Bible says something is rather meaningless. You need to prove your claim with reliable sources. The Bible can be abused to support almost any claim so it is not of much use in a debate when one says "the Bible says this".

So do you have anything besides abuse of your holy book?

God is not known by the mind or by proofs but is spiritually discerned.

People can try and make the Bible say anything by plucking out a sentence here or there. Like any book on any subject matter you need to read all the verses pertaining to the topic at hand and since the Bible is an English translation sometimes go back to the Hebrew or Greek. If someone only reads one or two sentences out of a book on any topic they are likely to get the wrong ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not known by the mind or by proofs but is spiritually discerned.

People can try and make the Bible say anything by plucking out a sentence here or there. Like any book on any subject matter you need to read all the verses pertaining to the topic at hand and since the Bible is an English translation sometimes go back to the Hebrew or Greek. If someone only reads one or two sentences out of a book on any topic they are likely to get the wrong ideas.

How will you prove that? How will you provide evidence for that? Your description also could apply to a being that does not exist at all.

By the way, why assume that someone that disagrees with you has only read a small part of the Bible? You should realize that most atheists in the US used to be Christians. They tend to understand the Bible better than most Christians. That is often the reason that they became atheists in the first place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Probably because they're still haggling over what to call the next project.

That wasn't it.

 

[Astrid]

Your exact quote was "Density and buoyancy is sufficient to explain the up and down movements of things.".

You were wrong, because there isn't any explanation within your Flat Earth idea,



The point is that gravity is a field that exerts force, not the force itself.

Less mass equals less force applied. This has been measured by school children for centuries.



Except those photos are either of more reflective patches on the moon or photographic errors... if they represent real transparency of moon, why can't they ever be demonstrated with a high detail moon image that could be taken with amateur equipment?

Another problem is that the stars move a different direction around the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere and different stars are visible.



You would be wrong as the Earth is in orbit around the sun so we are not directly by the Sun's gravity, effectively falling around the Sun. It's the same effect that causes freefall for a diving plane or in a space station around the Earth.

(I know you don't believe in space stations).


Ultimately you have an explanation that doesn't explain what you introduced it to explain... or even basic concepts like sun rises and visible objects.

The ancient greeks called it gravity and levity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So much for sharing.

I know in the academic world, the smots is nothing more than a game.

AV, we could make an entire sub forum of CF dedicated just to what you know and what the think you know... But let's stick to interesting topics, mmmkay?

Some make a living with it by sweat equity, some make a game [show] out of it, while others use it to degrade others.

Quite true -- many people don't have the option of seeking a formal education because circumstances require them to jump into the job market ASAP.

But most people, like @Estrid's (former) maid, know that one's most valuable piece of capital is their mind -- and it must be properly trained in order to be competitive.

 

[AV1611VET]

But most people, like @Estrid's (former) maid, know that one's most valuable piece of capital is their mind -- and it must be properly trained in order to be competitive.

That's because she wants to be a nurse.

Assuming she doesn't go the way of Darwin and leave her calling (and husband and children, should she have any) to go to some island and paste moths to trees.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's because she wants to be a nurse.

Indeed -- becoming a nurse requires a certain level of education... and kudos to this nice lady for seeking one out.

You'd be surprised how many people are consumed by bitterness and envy at people who seek to increase their knowledge...

Assuming she doesn't go the way of Darwin and leave her calling (and husband and children, should she have any) to go to some island and paste moths to trees.

... But then again, I guess you wouldn't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So with science, "probable" things are "settled", okay. I'm not happy with "probable" things being "settled".

The laws of physics are settled to the limits of our measurement ability - the law of gravity is well established. It's the explanations for those laws that are less well settled. IOW we know how gravity behaves with extraordinary precision, but although we have an explanation (a scientific theory) for why it behaves that way, we can't be sure it's the right explanation - there may be different explanations that have the same results (give rise to the same law of gravity).

You should really check out the video I shared on the previous post. It's really interesting.

Yes, it's a fascinating example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Someone who doesn't know how rainbows, the green flash, and auroras work, wasting the time to make a video claiming they have something to do with a dome...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did mass cause gravity to form earth or did gravity pull mass together to form earth?

Both - they're different ways of describing the same thing. The mass of the pieces of matter distorted spacetime causing a gravitational attraction that pulled them together to form the Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

The laws of physics are settled to the limits of our measurement ability - the law of gravity is well established. It's the explanations for those laws that are less well settled. IOW we know how gravity behaves with extraordinary precision, but although we have an explanation (a scientific theory) for why it behaves that way, we can't be sure it's the right explanation - there may be different explanations that have the same results (give rise to the same law of gravity).

Anyone can light a fire and burn something up.

The trick is to light a fire and it not burn something up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone can light a fire and burn something up.

The trick is to light a fire and it not burn something up.

And anyone can make up a story. Do you think that you could do the same trick?

 

[sjastro]

"where g is the acceleration due to gravity"?, I think you have missed my point. Why is it in a vacuum do the objects experience the same acceleration? Seems to me like "gravity" applies a different amount of force depending on the mass of the object (F=ma) which is nonsense.

The only nonsense here as pointed out by other posters is your inability to understand the difference between mass and weight, the effect of atmospheric resistance, and the acceleration of an object in a gravitational field is the same irrespective of its mass.

Yes, fake. Have you seen the previous posts?

Conspiracy theories are poor arguments as a substitute for understanding.
If the science is wrong it’s up to you to demonstrate why it is wrong as well as the observations and experiments which support it.

Its the effect of the firmament. There was a good video showing how a glass with the shape of the firmament can have similar effect (can't seem to find it now).
Edit: Found it now:
FLAT EARTH DOME & SOUTHERN STAR TRAILS

Is this some sort a joke?
What you are observing in the link is an example known as Newton's rings which is a real time phenomenon.
Star trails on the other hand are only apparent in time lapse photography, in real time stars are observed as points of light.
Drawing comparisons between the two is absurd and your actions are a classic case of trolling the internet to support a confirmation bias which is not a convincing way of presenting an argument.
Ironically your link provides a compelling case of why a firmament cannot explain stellar motion!!

You seem to think light has infinite range. You don't think the atmosphere would hinder you from seeing it (try to see through all the air in between)? Furthermore, there is a limitation of the eyes and devices. Try recognizing something represented by 1 pixel for instance.

This doesn’t even make any sense.
The reason why you cannot see Polaris from Perth WA is because it is below your horizon.
This raises another problem; if the earth is flat explain how the elevation angle of the celestial poles with the horizon varies with the observer’s latitude.
This will not happen if the Earth is flat.

I don't see people selling gold at midnight and buying gold at midday. People would be taking advantage of it if it were true. To test it, you could try something that is 1000kg for instance, that shouldn't be "negligible". How about when you consider mid-summer and mid-winter, still "negligible"?

The maths I used refers to tidal forces to illustrate the existence of gravity as a field gradient.
No field gradient implies no gravity and as the name suggests ocean tides are a physical manifestation of gravity.

A stronger affect using your gold example is when the moon is directly overhead.
Since F= ma = GMm/r²
Hence a = GM/r²
Since the Moons mass is M = 7.36 x 10²² kg and its distance r from Earth is 384,400 km then;
a = 0.000033 m/s²
Your 1000 kg gold weight has a mass of 1000/9.8 = 102 kg, the reduction in weight F due to the moon being directly overhead is 102 x 0.000033 = 0.34g.
A 1000 kg weight of gold reduced by 0.34g which is a 0.00034% reduction in weight and is not what I would call a significant change but it still illustrates the effects of gravity.

 

[AV1611VET]

And anyone can make up a story.

Yup.

Would YOU make up stories like that, with the satrap waiting to take off your head at the slightest mockery?

Do you think that you could do the same trick?

What trick?

Make up a story?

Most definitely.

But I wouldn't be so foolish as to think my educational background and college diploma would talk me out of having my body mass reduced to carbon.

No matter how many charts, graphs, and clipboards I hid behind.

But then, on the other hand, students aren't know for their wisdom, are they?

 

[sjastro]

This is not quite true. If one has a fairly accurate scale one can measure this amount by changing one's latitude. In other words there is evidence that the average person can observe that the Earth is spinning. One needs an accurate scale and a test weight. At a known latitude one puts the test weight on the scale and gets a reading. One takes a trip to another latitude and if the difference in latitude is large enough, and the scale is accurate enough, one can measure the change in weight. Since one is using the same test weight each time we know that its mass does not change, but its weight does. A scale that is accurate to four decimal places should be enough, though at least five would be ideal. My cheap kitchen scale from Amazon is almost that accurate, which leads me to conclude that for about $50.00 one should be able to buy a scale that one could use to measure the spin of the Earth.

The maths I described is about tidal forces which is the gradient of the gravitational field and has nothing to do with a spinning Earth.
Tidal forces are measured using gravimeters not cheap kitchen scales.

The example I gave results in a gradient with a negligible physical affect.
The physical effects of the tidal force depend on the distance R.
For an 80 kg mass with the difference between the near and far distance r being the Earth’s diameter and at a distance of R = 1.5 x 10¹¹ m, the Earth Sun distance, the physical effect is minimal.
If the distance R is reduced by a factor of 0.01 to 1.5 x 10⁹ m, the tidal force increases by a factor of over 100,000.

At very short distances from the Sun the tidal effects become enormous and the Roche limit is exceeded where tidal forces can pull a planet apart.
It also explains why the rings of Saturn are not regions for the formation of moons since the matter lies inside the Roche limit where tidal forces prevent gravitational collapse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup.

Would YOU make up stories like that, with the satrap waiting to take off your head at the slightest mockery?What trick?

Make up a story?

Most definitely.

But I wouldn't be so foolish as to think my educational background and college diploma would talk me out of having my body mass reduced to carbon.

No matter how many charts, graphs, and clipboards I hid behind.

But then, on the other hand, students aren't know for their wisdom, are they?

Why assume it was done in front of a satrap? That is a very very odd assumption.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why assume it was done in front of a satrap? That is a very very odd assumption.

Some ideas can only be spread (or repressed) through force or threat of force. Just ask the bookburners.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The maths I described is about tidal forces which is the gradient of the gravitational field and has nothing to do with a spinning Earth.
Tidal forces are measured using gravimeters not cheap kitchen scales.

The example I gave results in a gradient with a negligible physical affect.
The physical effects of the tidal force depend on the distance R.
For an 80 kg mass with the difference between the near and far distance r being the Earth’s diameter and at a distance of R = 1.5 x 10¹¹ m, the Earth Sun distance, the physical effect is minimal.
If the distance R is reduced by a factor of 0.01 to 1.5 x 10⁹ m, the tidal force increases by a factor of over 100,000.

At very short distances from the Sun the tidal effects become enormous and the Roche limit is exceeded where tidal forces can pull a planet apart.
It also explains why the rings of Saturn are not regions for the formation of moons since the matter lies inside the Roche limit where tidal forces prevent gravitational collapse.

Sorry, my mistake. But it was an understandable one. You used a force of "0.08 g" if I remember correctly. "g" can be either a mass, or an acceleration. And your answer was within one order of magnitude for the centripetal acceleration at the equator. So I made a bad assumption that you were talking abut a fraction of a g, or acceleration at sea level on the Earth. Unit wise we were both wrong since a force should be measured in Newtons, but since you are dealing with someone that does not understand physics I can see why you used a fraction of a gram.


But my experiment is still one of the many ways that one can test both gravity and the rotation of the Earth without spending the big bucks.

 

[sjastro]

Sorry, my mistake. But it was an understandable one. You used a force of "0.08 g" if I remember correctly. "g" can be either a mass, or an acceleration. And your answer was within one order of magnitude for the centripetal acceleration at the equator. So I made a bad assumption that you were talking abut a fraction of a g, or acceleration at sea level on the Earth. Unit wise we were both wrong since a force should be measured in Newtons, but since you are dealing with someone that does not understand physics I can see why you used a fraction of a gram.


But my experiment is still one of the many ways that one can test both gravity and the rotation of the Earth without spending the big bucks.

Yes I realize it is not technically correct to express the value in fractions of a gram as it is incorrect for my bathroom scales to record my weight in kilograms instead of Newtons.
The problem is in common language weight and mass are assumed to be one in the same thing and the dilemma is whether to use common language terminology in which case 0.08g is readily perceived as a small amount, where as expressing the value in Newtons can cause confusion to those that are not scientists or engineers.

 

[coffee4u]

How will you prove that? How will you provide evidence for that?

Who said I have to? You?
If you were genuinely seeking you can find plenty of evidence showing that Jesus lived. I am sure over your past 32,560 posts many people have tried to show evidence. Some people seem to enjoy doing that, I have no interest as that is a waste of time.

Your description also could apply to a being that does not exist at all.

It could and it could also apply to other spiritual beings like angels and demons.
Which is why God must be spiritually discerned.
But to even begin to have spiritual discernment your spirit needs to be awake. You don't feel it because your spirit is, asleep for want of a better word, and you want to keep it that way. Which is completely your choice. No one can make someone believe something. Maybe for some seeing a miracle in front of them might cause them to change but just as many would attempt to write it off as something else.

The very reason the world has many religions, cults, occultist beliefs such as tarot cards and horoscopes is because people do feel the spiritual. Their discernment is pretty poor, tending to be looking in the wrong places but they at least feel and acknowledge the spiritual. If the spiritual was simply made up you would not have millions upon millions of people looking, experiencing and living for it, atheism would be the majority. It isn't because people feel and know that there is more out there even if they are confused about it.

By the way, why assume that someone that disagrees with you has only read a small part of the Bible?

I was more talking about the people who have grabbed a verse or two and made huge claims around it. Like the Jehovah Witness (classed as a cult) say that the star over the house in Bethlehem at the birth of Christ was really Satan.

As far as people who disagree over certain points in the Bible, some may be Christians some might not be, but only God knows that for certain. People are not just spiritual we are also mental and physical and those can get in the way, turn us down wrong paths. Emotions can cloud judgment. Once a certain path is taken we can be rather stubborn in it too. However even those arguing over something like baptism would still believe in the deity of Christ. They would still say repent.

You should realize that most atheists in the US used to be Christians. They tend to understand the Bible better than most Christians. That is often the reason that they became atheists in the first place.

I know most claim that.
I don't believe any person who has communed with Jesus, who was born again spiritually has ever turned around and later become an atheist.
Not: Gone to church, read the Bible, called themselves Christian label' because this is what they grey up with, or believed with their heads; but born again where you feel God's presence.
The people who become atheists have never truly felt God or communed with God.
There is Christianity of the mind and that of the spirit and they are not the same. A true born again Christian can back slide, they can be angry with God and try and ignore God, but to become an atheist would mean denying ever feeling and knowing God. This would contradict the stance that "God doesn't exist", because someone cannot become a born again Christian without feeling God. I would more question if what they did feel was more hyped up emotion like some have felt from large gospel gatherings. That type of group euphoria may be caused by endorphins rather than spiritual discernment.
If someone becomes an atheist from 'understanding the Bible' then they too were never Christians to begin with. They had head knowledge not a change of heart or spiritual connection.