Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Nathan Poe]

If God would have autographed (written in His own handwriting) the entire Bible Himself, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Not so, AV -- God would've gotten it right.

Why do you think the [true] Bible says "brass", instead of "bronze"?

because King James took some poetic license?

Who employed sonic technology in wartime to bring down the walls of a superfortress built to keep invading armies out?

Oh, this I gotta hear... you actually take the whole "blowing trumpets to breach the walls of Jericho" schtick not only as literal, but as an example of superscientific "sonic technology"?

Can it even be said to be "technology" at all, AV, when, once pressed for discussion, you'll just resort to your "Goddidit" last resort?

Can miracles be considered technology?

 

[Jnwaco]

Not so, AV -- God would've gotten it right.

Right according to who?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Right according to who?

Well, for example, according to the thousands of Christian sects who each think that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and that all the others have it wrong.

Seems kind of odd that someone who is "not the author of confusion" allegedly penned the single most confusing tome in human history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, this I gotta hear... you actually take the whole "blowing trumpets to breach the walls of Jericho" schtick not only as literal, but as an example of superscientific "sonic technology"?

Here's the key to understanding it all:

Spoiler: Secret Word for Understanding Scientific Passages in the Bible

prescient

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, for example, according to the thousands of Christian sects who each think that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and that all the others have it wrong.

Ya --- there's what --- 38,000 according to you guys?

I think there are 38,000; until you're asked to name some, then the number suddenly gets much smaller.

 

[Cabal]

Here's the key to understanding it all:

Spoiler: Secret Word for Understanding Scientific Passages in the Bible

prescient

Huh.

I was expecting "sci-fi fan with an overactive imagination".

 

[Cabal]

Ya --- there's what --- 38,000 according to you guys?

I think there are 38,000; until you're asked to name some, then the number suddenly gets much smaller.

Well, some of them did set fire to the ones they really didn't like.

 

[Jnwaco]

Well, for example, according to the thousands of Christian sects who each think that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and that all the others have it wrong.
Seems kind of odd that someone who is "not the author of confusion" allegedly penned the single most confusing tome in human history.

First, many of the Christians sects have the basics right, though there are a few that don't (typically the ones that use the Bible ONLY to make money).

We create our own confusion to a large degree. This is not a new problem that Darwin invented.

Augustine, writing in the 300s-400s faced the same issue, as did Christians before him.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

The message of salvation is really really really SIMPLE. We've complicated it and that is tragic, but says more about man than it does the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh.

I was expecting "sci-fi fan with an overactive imagination".

That doesn't surprise me.

The interpretation/reaction of choice is almost always the one that prevents understanding.

 

[Cabal]

That doesn't surprise me.

The interpretation/reaction of choice is almost always the one that prevents understanding.

Don't talk like a sage, you're not.

Your "prescience" reads like bad sci-fi - and there are very few Christians who would think the same way as you.

 

[BananaSlug]

The light is not being bent.

Then what is it being?

I am claiming the interpretation of it is imaginary.

Then how would you explain it is appearing to be bent?

There are those who believe only what they see, and they are those who see only what they believe. This is true in both religion and science.

Some people see star light as being bent by the sun’s gravity because this is what they already believed, while others see it as star light being distorted by the sun’s corona because this is what they see.

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. –

The shimmering of heat waves only occurs in an atmosphere. Space is a vacuum. There is a difference between a distortion of light and bending of light.

How would you explain Einstein's Cross?

The Eclipse of 1919
I consider it to be a desperate and miserably poor interpretation by Consensus Cosmology.

Despite the fact that it was predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity?

The explanation of Plasma Cosmology makes more sense to me - Gravitational Lensing.

From the link...
Gravitational Lensing Used As Excuse Again
Recognizing the electrical behavior of plasma restores sensibility to a science dominated by “dark ideas” about undetectable (and therefore unscientific) matter.
Over 99% of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma—aggregates of matter that contain charged particles. The charged particles move in response to electromagnetic forces, which can overpower gravity billions of times over. Through collisions, the charged particles carry neutral particles along with them. A very few charged particles can shape large amounts of matter into characteristic forms such as filaments, arcs and toruses. The electric currents flowing through plasma can heat it to high temperatures and accelerate particles to x-ray and cosmic-ray energies.
Unfortunately, the established institutions of astronomy are willfully blind to the existence of electricity in the universe. And so they must try to explain plasma phenomena with the weak force of gravity. Because there isn’t enough matter in the universe to accomplish this, astronomers have had to fantasize invisible, “dark” matter and energy.
In this image of Abell 1689, a cluster of small, faint galaxies in the Virgo Cluster, active galaxies have generated arcs of plasma with high redshifts, indicative of a young age for the highly excited material. Because conventional theory requires redshift to be solely a measure of distance, conventional astronomers are forced to believe that the arcs represent objects that are much farther away than the cluster. The only way to accomplish this with gravity is to have the cluster act as a lens that distorts objects behind the cluster as it warps those objects’ light around the cluster.
The caption to this image that appeared in the Astronomy Picture of the Day admitted: “The power of this enormous gravitational lens depends on its mass, but the visible matter, in the form of the cluster's yellowish galaxies, only accounts for about one percent of the mass needed to make the observed bluish arcing images of background galaxies. In fact, most of the gravitational mass required to warp space enough to explain this cosmic scale lensing is in the form of still mysterious dark matter.”
Because they refuse to see that 99% of the visible matter is plasma that defies their dogma, conventional astronomers must pretend that 99% of the matter is invisible but “dogmatically correct.”
Contributed by Don Scott

^I do not see an explanation at all. Would you mind pointing it out to me? I have started a thread on this topic if you would like to go there...

 

[Doveaman]

Then what is it being?

It is traveling in a straight line toward us.

Then how would you explain it is appearing to be bent?

Electrical discharges in cosmic plasma generate filaments, arcs and toruses that appear to be bent, because they are bent.

The shimmering of heat waves only occurs in an atmosphere. Space is a vacuum. There is a difference between a distortion of light and bending of light.

If you read the entire article you will see that the 1919 "bent light" idea has been debunked.

How would you explain Einstein's Cross?

A parent galaxy (center) surrounded by its four baby quasars, all in close proximity to each other as the image shows.

Despite the fact that it was predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity?

What is being observed has been retrodicted (retrofitted), not predicted.

From the link...

Over 99% of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma—aggregates of matter that contain charged particles. The charged particles move in response to electromagnetic forces, which can overpower gravity billions of times over. Through collisions, the charged particles carry neutral particles along with them. A very few charged particles can shape large amounts of matter into characteristic forms such as filaments, arcs and toruses. The electric currents flowing through plasma can heat it to high temperatures and accelerate particles to x-ray and cosmic-ray energies.

Unfortunately, the established institutions of astronomy are willfully blind to the existence of electricity in the universe.

^I do not see an explanation at all.

That's perhaps because you, like the rest of the Consensus, are willfully blind to the existence of electricity in the universe and have no idea what it does there.

 

[BananaSlug]

It is traveling in a straight line toward us.

Really?

Electrical discharges in cosmic plasma generate filaments, arcs and toruses that appear to be bent, because they are bent.

I do not see any filaments, arcs, or toruses in this picture. Nothing but galaxies. Since there are none of what you speak of in this picture, what is making the galaxies appear distorted?

If you read the entire article you will see that the 1919 "bent light" idea has been debunked.

I found it interesting that the article did not provide any references that I could cross check.

A parent galaxy (center) surrounded its four baby quasars, all in close proximity to each other as the image shows.

This system is called the Einstein Cross, because it is such an excellent example of the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.This phenomenon was postulated by Einstein as soon as he realised that gravity would be able to bend light and thus could have lens-like effects. This system is also known as Huchra's Lens, after its founder. The four separate images have the same redshift of Z= 1.695 . This suggests that they are quasar images, and in fact multiple images of the same quasar. The image is interpreted as gravitational lensing by an almost perfectly aligned galaxy for which the red shift was measured to be Z= 0.0394 . Using a Hubble constant of 71 km/s /Megaparsec as indicated by the WMAP project, the Z measurements imply a distance of 500 million light years for the lensing galaxy and 10.4 billion ly for the quasar. The quasar is over 20 times further away than the galaxy that lenses it to give the four images. Modeling suggests that the alignment of the lensing galaxy and the quasar is within 0.05 arcseconds.
Credit: J.Rhoads, S.Malhotra, I.Dell'Antonio (NOAO)/WIYN/NOAO/NSF. The gravitationally lensed quasar is designated Q2237+0305 and the image was taken by the 3.5-meter WIYN telescope, on the night of October 4, 1999.

These high resolution examinations of the Einstein Cross were taken at times three years apart and show variations in the image. The variations are attributed to effects of individual stars in the foreground galaxy upon the gravitational lensing. Credit: G. Lewis (IOA) and M. Irwin (RGO), William Hershel Telescope.
Einstein Cross

What is being observed has been retrodicted (retrofitted), not predicted.

Einstein predicted if space can become curved due to mass, then light traveling through space will curve as well. That is all.

That's perhaps because you, like the rest of the Consensus, are willfully blind to the existence of electricity in the universe and have no idea what it does there.

If the electromagnetic force is more important than gravity, then what is the force that allows us to stay on this planet? If electromagnetism is so important than we should be able to study its effects right here on earth, correct?

 

[Doveaman]

I do not see any filaments, arcs, or toruses in this picture. Nothing but galaxies.

Maybe you need a closer look.

Since there are none of what you speak of in this picture, what is making the galaxies appear distorted?

Take a closer look:

It is not unusual for galaxies to appear distorted, and it has nothing to do with gravitational lensing, as the images above show.

I found it interesting that the article did not provide any references that I could cross check.

And then you would ask for more references to cross check the references you cross checked with the references.

This system is called the Einstein Cross, because it is such an excellent example of the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

It's an excellent example of mathemagic: 1+1=5.

I find it strange that the four outer objects are said to be one object, yet they look so different from each other. But I'm sure you have a explanation for that.

If the electromagnetic force is more important than gravity, then what is the force that allows us to stay on this planet?

Electric gravity.

If electromagnetism is so important than we should be able to study its effects right here on earth, correct?

Correct.

And that's why Plasma Physicists and Electrical Engineers study its effects right hear on earth in the science labs, while the Consensus ignore it or are blind to it because of their adherence to Big Bang theology.

 

[Ellinas]

Creationists are really trying hard to find anything that may get accepted in the realms of science that will prove their beliefs. They don't stand a chance in hell simply because they insist on bringing forth so called scientific evidences without regard to the required scientific rules governing science. It is very similar to their denial of other Gods while insisting that their God exists.

This whole issue is silly. The space faring nations have successfully used the laws of gravity to accurately send probes to the farthest regions of our solar system. Don't you think they would have taken into consideration this "electric universe" notion seriously if it were true? They have absolutely no reason to hide such a thing! It would not constitute a "National security issue"!

What next? "Polka Dot Universe theory"?

HOUSE WAS RIGHT!

 

[Nostromo]

Electric gravity.

I would absolutely love to know what your explanation is for this, especially considering electrically charged (both positive and negative) and electrically neutral materials are all affected the same amount by it.

So if you want me to believe you have single cell fossils from the beginning of life, then you have a weak case. Then there are assumptions built into the dating methods as well, even if it was a "strong" case.

You missed the whole point of my post, intentionally or not. Even if we ignore the single cell stuff altogether, it is perfectly obvious that life on this planet has changed over time, quite drastically.

To be able to confirm macroevolution in a lab setting by moving the fruit fly into the category of a new species.

Being a biological first is not a good reason?
I KNOW they are not trying to prove a new species can be created by mutating one species into another.

What can I say except welcome to the 60s, we've been waiting for you.

Then you could experiment on how environmental pressures direct mutations and create the pressure to form new species that are more advanced
than the previous generation.

Already done, do you even bother looking?

 

[Cabal]

Electric gravity.

 

[Doveaman]

Creationists are really trying hard to find anything that may get accepted in the realms of science that will prove their beliefs.

That's not my intent.

What naturally happens is that when the scientific explanation of reality is good, it lends support to biblical explanations of reality, and vice versa.

But when the scientific explanation does not lend support to biblical explanations of reality, or deny them altogether, then the scientific explanation is miserably flawed, and has nothing to do with reality

This whole issue is silly. The space faring nations have successfully used the laws of gravity to accurately send probes to the farthest regions of our solar system.

No one is denying gravity exist. There are just different explanations for it, that's all. The electrical nature of gravity is one explanation.

Don't you think they would have taken into consideration this "electric universe" notion seriously if it were true?

Nope, because it's true, but they don't take it into consideration.

They have absolutely no reason to hide such a thing! It would not constitute a "National security issue"!

Perhaps they would rather continue to be wrong rather than admit they are wrong.

Or maybe they are just ignorant of the electrical nature of the universe.

Or both.

 

[Doveaman]

They laughed at Jesus too, you know.

But He was right.

Since you guys don't have an explanation for gravity after so many years of trying, any explanation is better than what you have.

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,” declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.” - Source

God did it with electricity.

 

[Cabal]

They laughed at Jesus too, you know.

But He was right.

And that has naff-all to do with anyone's opinion here.

And the phrase "electric gravity" is just pricelessly, tragically funny, given that 90% of your posts here consist of the usual kneejerk reactions against science that doesn't back up your personal interpretations of the Bible.

Goodness, at least some creationists focus on multiple theories but your singular disdain for LCDM is quite worrying.

Since you guys don't have an explanation for gravity after so many years of trying, any explanation is better than what you have.

This is also wrong on many levels. Explanations have been put forward. And they are a lot more robust than what you have put forward. And "any explanation is better than none" is just poor logic.

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,” declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”

- Source

Quote mining, and this still doesn't mean EU is right. More bad logic.

God did it with electricity.

And an unsupported assertion, the Doveaman fail-trademark.

I'd recommend you get to a physics class, but a basic logic class for functioning on a day-to-day basis might be more urgent for you.