-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
For Creationists.....
- Thread starter FoeHammer
- Start date
Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 63
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, Dictionary.com lists nine definitons for that word. One deals only with resolutions of morality with no reference to any sort of belief structure, and the rest are so vague that Democracy, Capitolism, music appreciation, and model train collecting could all qualify. Only the first definition deals with anything specifically religious, and it excludes several of the religions commonly accepted as such by both participants and observers. Buddhism, for example, is one a few religions which have no creator god, and for whom there is no relevant cause, nature, or purpose to the universe as it relates to their system of belief. All these things are "irrelevent" to Buddhism, and Buddhists will tell you so themselves.
Neither, coincidentally, does evolution have any of that, as I have already explained. So if you still want to assert that evolution is a religion, you're going to have to try again, because your first attempt failed. Now list every religion commonly accepted as such; (neo-pagan, Shinto, Shaman, Druid, Sikh, Asatru, Chinese ancestor worship, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. etc.) and redefine "religion" such that it includes every religion commonly accepted as such, and let's see if you can force biological science into that.
Nope. Didn't even hint at it.
Because it does work, and you're trying to make it sound like it can't. Its still demonstrably more reliably accurate than your religious nonsense, despite your shallow insinuation that, if it ain't infallible, then it ain't no good at all.
No, I told what the only possible indication is, and I challenged you to present any counter interpretation you could for all that I was referring to. Because there are no other option to "interpret". For example, remember that deep time, dating methods, and the geologic column were descovered by Christian scientists, and they identified index fossils indicating several successions of speciations and extinctions. Then of course, taxonomy was developed by another Christian scientist to classify all these things and common group relationships were cited even then, and all this was a century before Darwin was even born. How do you "interpret" that?
I did answer that question. See, the beautiful thing about science education is that they don't want to just believe them. That certainly wouldn't be scientific! Instead they want to demonstrate and prove the point. So my classes have laboratories and direct observations and experiments with the evidence with microscopes and reactive chemicals and such.
All of it. I've cross referenced and confirmed everything I've ever been taught, and have now dedicated more than a decade of concentrated study into this topic, six years of that before I ever even went back to school.
Wrong. faith = stoic trust/confidence/belief ...without evidence, and stoic trust/confidence/belief without evidence = faith.
No, because what you quoted you also deliberately snipped to edit out the important part.
"Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
--Bartleby.com, Dictionary.com
"complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief."
--AskOxford
"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
--OneLook
"a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
--Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.
"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof,."
--Encarta
"For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.g. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."
--Wikipedia
When necessary, I will. You, on the other hand, should learn how to admit when you're wrong. But of course if you did that, you couldn't be a creationist anymore.
Well, at least you admit that the Bible is only the opinion of others.
But still, when trying to determine the definition of a word, one would have to turn to definitive sources and cross-reference those as I have done. I doubt very much that you could produce any equal array to counter the real definition as I have revealed it.
Oh, its obvious, is it? I thought that since I can site Christian hymns and websites as well as theologians past and present as well as a consensus of all dictionaries, and every definitive verse of the Bible itself, that since every source consistently gave the same definition I do, that it obviously was as I showed it to be in context. What snippet do you think you can show to reveal how "obvious" your misunderstanding of that is?
Upvote
0
I would like to know the precise orbits of the Sun, Mars and Venus and perhaps some stars, too. Then I would like to know how they fit with observation, and how they can predict what will happen tomorrow.
Of course, this all has to be parsimonious as well, since you've not yet provided evidence that doesn't fit good old gravity.
Upvote
0
Frumious Bandersnatch What is the angular momentum of the ether/universe as it rotates around the earth daily? One would think it really enormous. So how is it that the rotation of the universe around the earth is slowing down at the rate one would expect if it were the rotating earth that was being slowed down due to friction loss from tidal coupling in the earth/moon system? [/quote said:
Upvote
0
I didn't ask if earthquakes were allowed. I asked this question
How is it that massive earthquakes can cause slight but measureable variations in the rate the entire universe rotates around the earth. This would also seem to me to be impossible in a geocentric universe.
How is it that the farthest star "knows" that there was an earthquake and instantly changes its rate of rotation around the earth? How can angular momentum possibly be conserved in this situation? How can an earthquake on our little planet instantly alter the rotation rate and thus the angular momentum of the entire universe, which must as I said be of enormous magnitude if the entire universe really is zipping around the earth each day?
Upvote
0
Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote
0
So the Earth does move? When our day slows down due to tidal forces, it isn’t really slowing down but rather speeding up in the same direction that the ether spins.
Upvote
0
RichardT
Contributor
I guess I'll copy paste (again) what Dr. Bouw sees as common misconceptions of Geocentricity.
By Gerardus D. Bouw (Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University)
Publisher:
The Biblical Astronomer
4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A.
http://www.geocentricity.com
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 heliocentric
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 (3x1010 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 nonrotating
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.
By Gerardus D. Bouw (Ph.D. in astronomy from Case Western Reserve University)
Publisher:
The Biblical Astronomer
4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A.
http://www.geocentricity.com
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 heliocentric
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 (3x1010 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 nonrotating
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.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
MarcusHill
Educator and learner
- May 1, 2007
- 976
- 76
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hey, it just occurred to me! Could the firmamant with its huge "Planck density" be "Dark Matter"? We should contact some astrophysicists immediately so we can reinstate geocentrism.
Upvote
0
Doubt it, we are only missing something like 90% of our Universe’s mass. A cubic centimeter of material with plank density would contain more mass than thousands of Universes.
Upvote
0
That's not surprising. I doubt if any legitmate astrophysicist could stop laughing long enough review them.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
