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.
Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.The earth is building mountains as two plates collide over million of years. The earth is unable to lie about that truth. The evidence is in the mountains themselves and the earthquakes that happen as a result.
I don't know.Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.
Tell me:
Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?
Nevermind.What's that have to do with the Earth showing us a very different story than the Bible Creation story.
Your young Sheldon references noted. So let's actually get back to talking about the subject matter.Either this "light" verbiage is some bad poetic reference, or god is made of photons with a few eV energy and I can block god with a decent
Where you are looking at people's reaction to an earthquake, I'm looking at the Earth.Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.
Tell me:
Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?
Your point?I'm not going to get into the debate of equating God with light but from a purely physics perspective the equation E = mₒc² does not describe the energy of light or a photon which is a wave packet of light.
E = mₒc² is part of a more general equation E = c√(p² + mₒ²c²) where p is the momentum, mₒ is the rest mass and c is the speed of light.
Since photons have a zero rest mass mₒ = 0 , the equation reduces to E = c√(p²) = pc which is the correct equation for the energy of photon.
For particles with a rest mass mₒ, p = 0 and the equation reduces to E = c√( mₒ²c²) = mₒc².
So were the seismologists, who were asked if it was safe to back into the water.Where you are looking at people's reaction to an earthquake, I'm looking at the Earth.
I can apologise for not giving chapter and verse, but it's really difficult to fully explain why a screed like that is just one long non-sequitur, from the 'nature of the universe' being quantifiable, to scripture being 'completely accurate and consistent with all known science'. Using a scattering of scientific terms doesn't make it scientific. It's fine if you want to claim God created the universe and/or is bigger than the universe, or is a being made of light in some poetic or metaphorical way, but none of that is remotely scientific, and it only detracts from the poesy to claim that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯nice attempt at denial, deflection & obscurification. In fact it does make it science, because it is consistent with what science has already observed and demonstrated is possible. this just demonstrates that you don't want any evidence and are close minded. you have not given any valid reason for your objection , you just said "i don't like that answer" so open your mind and get some integrity
I can apologise for not giving chapter and verse, but it's really difficult to fully explain why a screed like that is just one long non-sequitur, from the 'nature of the universe' being quantifiable, to scripture being 'completely accurate and consistent with all known science'. Using a scattering of scientific terms doesn't make it scientific. It's fine if you want to claim God created the universe and/or is bigger than the universe, or is a being made of light in some poetic or metaphorical way, but none of that is remotely scientific, and it only detracts from the poesy to claim that it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Recall this comment of yours.Your point?
It is not subject to E=mc² because light (and photons) are massless.Light is an energy form and is subject E=mc²
Your young Sheldon references noted.
Got any of the scientific proof god exists?So let's actually get back to talking about the subject matter.
What was the cause of the Earthquake? What caused the build up the Apennine Mountains? Why are there so many Earth Quakes as well as active volcanoes in Italy? That's the area to look towards to see that the Earth is telling a very different Creation Story than the Bible Creation Story.So were the seismologists, who were asked if it was safe to back into the water.
They looked at the earth too.
And the earth lied to them, didn't it?
(Or maybe the scientists just thought they were "hearing" what they wanted to hear?)
For example? I would have thought it more accurate to say that we know more about light than many other things in physics.1. We don't know as much about light as other things in Physics.
Perhaps it doesn't contradict science because science says nothing about such things...2.That is how God is described in the scripture, it does not contradict science.
Well, no. We are not made up of light. We're made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.3. Scripture says "we live and move and have our being IN Him. so we exist in light, move in light and are made up of light. That is accurate scientific view of our existence and material matter.
OK. But isn't all thinking fundamentally belief based?Angels on the head of a pin, when compared with the real issue .. which is belief based thinking.
IIRC, the scientists were acquitted on appeal, 'no case to answer'.Yes ... I'm familiar with the rhetoric as to mountains form over jillions of years.
Tell me:
Why did the common people of L'Aquila go back to their homes? and why were the scientists prosecuted?
I think it wrong to connect Divine Light with light seen in the physical world. They are two very different things.2.That is how God is described in the scripture, it does not contradict science.
You don't think that some thinking is experiential based?OK. But isn't all thinking fundamentally belief based?
Thank goodness sanity prevailed; who would have been next target for imprisonment, the weatherman?IIRC, the scientists were acquitted on appeal, 'no case to answer'.
OK, let's assume what you said was spot on, but I didn't understand it because it was a summary presented in an unusual format and couched in unfamiliar terms.Not using a proper definition of science. Because science is about observable evidence. You wanted observations for the natural world where you got it. What you are doing is playing a game. You asked for an answer you got one and then you dismissed it because you didn't like it. You have stated that it's not science I'm not actually really given anything any real objections even in your last answer it was not an objection it was just a dismissal. You have you're making up some imaginary definition of of science to reject something you don't want to accept to begin with so there's no point in trying to speak with you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?