Where gravity and forces come from..!

JustMeSee · Nov 16, 2010

Delphiki said:
I can actually answer this, though I obviously don't agree with it. AV believes that when God created the universe, he did so with the photons already in transit -- so they aren't ACTUALLY from Andromeda, but still represent a galaxy 2.5Mly away.

Yes. Crazy. I know.

Thanks. That realization came to my mind after posting my questions.

I need to remember embedded age applies to light too. So, basically we don't really see light from Andromeda. We see light that was created in space 6000 years ago.

pgp_protector · Nov 16, 2010

This thread reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer was boxing.

JustMeSee · Nov 16, 2010

pgp_protector said:
This thread reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer was boxing.

I didn't see that one. Was it painful to watch?

Spirit Compass · Nov 16, 2010

dad said:
Anyone know what causes gravity?

So, laws here in our physical world, and environs are set up for here and now. Not forever. [exerpted for response]

Local galactic creations are administratively organized in accordance with certain creative principles governing the segmentation of the total energy charge of a superuniverse, whereas their physical components, the spheres of space suns, dark islands, planets, etc. take origin primarily from nebulae, and these make their astronomical appearance in accordance with certain precreative (transcendental) plans of the Architects of the Master Universe. These architects know the laws of science that are created to govern 'planet ocean and earth.'

:wave:

Delphiki · Nov 16, 2010

Why is this board called "Physical and Life Sciences", exactly?

Rilke's Granddaughter · Nov 16, 2010

dad said:
Well, so much for any flood layer criteria you set up. I guess you can't stick to a clear position. OK.

My position is utterly clear. If the bible was true, we would expect to see a single sedimentary layer with a mixture of all known fossils in it. QED the bible is wrong.

No. It shows that a reaction took place. The times and manner that occurred were only modeled after a present state/present law scenario. The magic dunking miles underground of the whole site and other dreams render your version a fable. Literally.

You don't know what "literally" means, do you dad? You really should invest in a dictionary. But YOU ADMIT THE OKLOREACTOR HAPPENED. That wasn't very smart of you, dad.

In a different state, deposition was a breeze. But don't toss out a bunch of things that require their own thread in some vague way here. An honest look deserves more. In no way do they prove a same state past, of course. Poor you.

Sure, baseless denial mantras could be fun.
You need a point, not a "paper" What in the paper would you like to present here, that is topical?

Talent on loan from God.

Show me the science that extends beyond the present state.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2010

JustMeSee said:
Do you believe that our galaxies were significantly closer (less than 6000 light years away from each other) 6000 years ago?

Yes.

JustMeSee said:
From where do you get this specific/detailed information?

The universe was created in the hollow of God's hand, then stretched to its current dimensions:

Isaiah 40:12 ¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

pgp_protector · Nov 16, 2010

JustMeSee said:
I didn't see that one. Was it painful to watch?

No,not painful, it's just the way Homer "won" the fights. Find it and you'll see the connection

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2010

Delphiki said:
I can actually answer this, though I obviously don't agree with it. AV believes that when God created the universe, he did so with the photons already in transit -- so they aren't ACTUALLY from Andromeda, but still represent a galaxy 2.5Mly away.

That is correct.

Genesis 1 has God saying, "Let there be light", before He creates the stars days later.

Delphiki said:
Yes. Crazy. I know.

We call it basic doctrine.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2010

Rilke's Granddaughter said:
You refuse wisdom; you refuse knowledge; you refuse to learn.

The Bible says you are a fool. I've got lots more quotes that show how wrong you are.

Fell short of these, didn't you?

Psalm 14: 1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Rilke's Granddaughter · Nov 16, 2010

AV1611VET said:
That is correct.

Genesis 1 has God saying, "Let there be light", before He creates the stars days later.

We call it basic doctrine.

Actually no - virtually no one believes in embedded age. It's such an incredibly minor position that it doesn't even register.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2010

Delphiki said:
Why is this board called "Physical and Life Sciences", exactly?

So you guys can get caught-up on everything you miss out on when you have the Bible taken out of our schools?

Only now you do it behind closed doors.

That's like I getting English out of the schools; then, behind closed doors, learn English on the Internet.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2010

Rilke's Granddaughter said:
Actually no - virtually no one believes in embedded age. It's such an incredibly minor position that it doesn't even register.

That's not Embedded Age, mam.

Delphiki · Nov 16, 2010

Thus another unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation..... and so on, just so the bible can be correct.

And creationists like to accuse scientific theory of incredulity.

AND they don't have to prove anything because they don't believe in things like proof, evidence, or reality.

Delphiki · Nov 16, 2010

AV1611VET said:
So you guys can get caught-up on everything you miss out on when you have the Bible taken out of our schools?

That's not why I'm here. I'm here in hopes that I can educate someone on what science actually is, how useful it actually is, and how people like you take full advantage of it's benefits while preaching against it.

I'm here in hopes to begin to pull at least one idiot out of imagination land.

Nabobalis · Nov 16, 2010

Delphiki said:
Thus another unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation to support an unproven speculation..... and so on, just so the bible can be correct.

And creationists like to accuse scientific theory of incredulity.

AND they don't have to prove anything because they don't believe in things like proof, evidence, or reality.

A fool's fool fools fools who foolishly accept the foolishness of a fool's fool.

(If anyone gets the reference you are an immortal!)

Rilke's Granddaughter · Nov 16, 2010

AV1611VET said:
That's not Embedded Age, mam.

You appear to be advocating a mixture of Embedded Age and Omphalos.

In any case, what you are espousing is not basic doctrine. It's an extremist position held by a tiny handful of science-averse, theology-averse fundies.

ug333 · Nov 16, 2010

This is the scariest thread I have read through here!

Science will always have questions to answer. ALWAYS. If M-Theory is proven true, then the question will be around what a "string" is. To say that science has failed because it doesn't know everything is to not understand how science works.

The success or failure of science isn't measured in our knowledge in absolute terms, but in the progress of our knowledge.

Rilke's Granddaughter · Nov 16, 2010

The problem with your position, dad, is that if you are consistent with it, then you've shot yourself in the foot.

If we cannot rely on the past not having been changed, then we cannot assume anything about the past - even the past of three minutes ago. A malevolent trickster deity might have created the entire universe six minutes ago - with the Bible apparently an old document, but in reality just a brand-new lie.

According to you, dad, that's a perfectly viable scenario. In fact YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Which means that you're a servant of the Great Deceiver. Tsk, tsk.

Delphiki · Nov 16, 2010

Rilke's Granddaughter said:
The problem with your position, dad, is that if you are consistent with it, then you've shot yourself in the foot.

If we cannot rely on the past not having been changed, then we cannot assume anything about the past - even the past of three minutes ago. A malevolent trickster deity might have created the entire universe six minutes ago - with the Bible apparently an old document, but in reality just a brand-new lie.

According to you, dad, that's a perfectly viable scenario. In fact YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Which means that you're a servant of the Great Deceiver. Tsk, tsk.

This, I believe, is commonly referred to as Last-Tuesday-ism.

Where gravity and forces come from..!

Contributor

Noted strange person

Contributor

Surfer on the Lucid Sea

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Noted strange person

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Nabobalis

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads