Jinx wrote:
So the ultimate cause of you is A- God? or B - a sperm cell meeting an egg cell?
Papias
So the ultimate cause of you is A- God? or B - a sperm cell meeting an egg cell?
Papias
Upvote
0
-
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.
If the universe is <10,000 old....
- Thread starter philadiddle
- Start date
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
NGC 6712 said:
One question that bothers me is the retrograde motion of some planets, moons, even whole galaxies. What caused this? I've heard that an impact could cause this, but wouldn't an impact great enough to change a planets or moons spin be so great as to take a massive chunk off if not destroy it all together?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,830
- 7,850
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Galaxies can't have retrograde motion, since there's nothing in particular for galactic motion to be aligned with. Planets and moons can, where the motion is retrograde with respect to their star and their planet, respectively.
Planets and large moons are big enough that if a large chunk is taken out of one, what's left re-forms as a sphere again.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
sfs said:
What is the evidence for this? Are there massive pieces missing? And what about Uranus? It's a gas giant...not really anything for something to strike...
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
I believe you are missing the point. "Was the origin of the universe God or a singularity?" Was the question, directed towards another poster as part of their conversation.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Well whether the asker in my opinion doesn't understand that the question creates a false dichotomy, one in which a theistic evolutionist would happily and adamantly say God created the universe as a singularity and continues to create and uphold this creation to this day.
Upvote
0
Progmonk wrote
It's worth noting that Jinx still hasn't answered my question from many pages ago, and now has posted without answering progmonk's question.
Papias
**********************************
MM wrote:
This exchange shows us how great our challenge is in being relevant in the modern world. For centuries, the local Christian minister was naturally given respect because he could give solid answers to two important questions - "what is real?", and "what is important?".
This is sometimes still true today, but too often the Christian minister doesn't know much at all about the real world, and by flunking the first question ("what is real?"), as a result that minister is not seen as a reliable authority on the second question (that second question being "what is important?"). Worse, some ministers advertise this lack of understanding by encouraging ignorance and promoting the rejection of science, and so they are ignored all the more quickly, dragging down the reputation of Christianity in the process.
MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in it or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
Papias
Originally Posted by Papias
Or on another note what's the cause of the weather A- God? or B- the processes described and studied in Meterology?
It's worth noting that Jinx still hasn't answered my question from many pages ago, and now has posted without answering progmonk's question.
Papias
**********************************
MM wrote:
This exchange shows us how great our challenge is in being relevant in the modern world. For centuries, the local Christian minister was naturally given respect because he could give solid answers to two important questions - "what is real?", and "what is important?".
This is sometimes still true today, but too often the Christian minister doesn't know much at all about the real world, and by flunking the first question ("what is real?"), as a result that minister is not seen as a reliable authority on the second question (that second question being "what is important?"). Worse, some ministers advertise this lack of understanding by encouraging ignorance and promoting the rejection of science, and so they are ignored all the more quickly, dragging down the reputation of Christianity in the process.
MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in it or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MM wrote:
This exchange shows us how great our challenge is in being relevant in the modern world. For centuries, the local Christian minister was naturally given respect because he could give solid answers to two important questions - "what is real?", and "what is important?".
This is sometimes still true today, but too often the Christian minister doesn't know much at all about the real world, and by flunking the first question ("what is real?"), as a result that minister is not seen as a reliable authority on the second question (that second question being "what is important?"). Worse, some ministers advertise this lack of understanding by encouraging ignorance and promoting the rejection of science, and so they are ignored all the more quickly, dragging down the reputation of Christianity in the process.
MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant in nearly all areas of knowlege, including European history, foreign languages, and more. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in their ignorance or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
Papias
This exchange shows us how great our challenge is in being relevant in the modern world. For centuries, the local Christian minister was naturally given respect because he could give solid answers to two important questions - "what is real?", and "what is important?".
This is sometimes still true today, but too often the Christian minister doesn't know much at all about the real world, and by flunking the first question ("what is real?"), as a result that minister is not seen as a reliable authority on the second question (that second question being "what is important?"). Worse, some ministers advertise this lack of understanding by encouraging ignorance and promoting the rejection of science, and so they are ignored all the more quickly, dragging down the reputation of Christianity in the process.
MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant in nearly all areas of knowlege, including European history, foreign languages, and more. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in their ignorance or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
Papias
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Papias said:
Well, ignoring the overarching insult of this entire post, where am I "rejecting science" by asking how something occurred, and presenting an idea as to why part of the current theory may be incorrect? Science is asking questions and finding answers. I asked sfs a question to possibly learn something, but again you invited yourself into the conversation to put in two cents that was not requested. Your arrogance astounds.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Worse, some ministers advertise this lack of understanding by encouraging ignorance and promoting the rejection of science,
MM, it's OK to be ignorant
This pretty well says I am...coupled with other posts, and a definite pattern emerges.
MM, it's OK to be ignorant
This pretty well says I am...coupled with other posts, and a definite pattern emerges.
Upvote
0
MM wrote:
As progmonk pointed out, the post above is written about ministers in general, and MM, there are other ministers besides you. However, you are correct that your posts can be seen as rejecting science. Let's look at the discussion again:
MM:
((OK - this is a very basic question - fair enough.))
sfs:
((sfs' reply is a generous and kind answer to your question.))
MM:
((The demand for evidence after a general mechanism is given can be perceived as rejecting the mechanism, which is well known. Worse, asking again if there are pieces missing shows that you ignored his answer. Third, your question about gas giants includes what sounds like an objection ("not really anything to strike") and shows that you are ignorant of planetary physics - a impact of even a small asteroid on a gas giant releases more energy that all the nukes ever made. Like I said, that ignorance is OK, but it means that "objections" are unreasonable.))
MM wrote:
MM, did you seriously think that you'd see a very basic fact (like a missing chunk) that literally hundreds of scientists would somehow have missed, even though they have run millions of calculations and observations? That's coupled with the extreme ignorance of the question (like asking how fires could exist since there is water in the air all the time so fires should go out). Get over yourself - you aren't going to introduce an idea that make's them all smack their foreheads and say "wow, how could we have missed that?!!?", and to suggest that shows that you are massively underestimating the amount of confirmation actual scientists already have on this.
You did start like that - to learn - all well and good. But your second response shows that you didn't even listen to the answer, and then tried to object to the answer as if you had the knowledge to question it. It's fine to ask questions. It's fine to ask questions and learn. It's not fine to object to the answer from someone who is relating the established science using nothing more than your own personal incredulity.
Um, MM, I'm not the one ignoring the life's work of hundreds of very smart people, and I'm not the one suggesting that I know better than the experts. Please read you .sig file (which you attach to every post), and then tell me again how I'm arrogant and you are not.
Papias
MM:
((OK - this is a very basic question - fair enough.))
sfs:
.
MM:
((The demand for evidence after a general mechanism is given can be perceived as rejecting the mechanism, which is well known. Worse, asking again if there are pieces missing shows that you ignored his answer. Third, your question about gas giants includes what sounds like an objection ("not really anything to strike") and shows that you are ignorant of planetary physics - a impact of even a small asteroid on a gas giant releases more energy that all the nukes ever made. Like I said, that ignorance is OK, but it means that "objections" are unreasonable.))
MM wrote:
MM, did you seriously think that you'd see a very basic fact (like a missing chunk) that literally hundreds of scientists would somehow have missed, even though they have run millions of calculations and observations? That's coupled with the extreme ignorance of the question (like asking how fires could exist since there is water in the air all the time so fires should go out). Get over yourself - you aren't going to introduce an idea that make's them all smack their foreheads and say "wow, how could we have missed that?!!?", and to suggest that shows that you are massively underestimating the amount of confirmation actual scientists already have on this.
You did start like that - to learn - all well and good. But your second response shows that you didn't even listen to the answer, and then tried to object to the answer as if you had the knowledge to question it. It's fine to ask questions. It's fine to ask questions and learn. It's not fine to object to the answer from someone who is relating the established science using nothing more than your own personal incredulity.
Um, MM, I'm not the one ignoring the life's work of hundreds of very smart people, and I'm not the one suggesting that I know better than the experts. Please read you .sig file (which you attach to every post), and then tell me again how I'm arrogant and you are not.
Papias
Upvote
0
Papias, no one is rejecting science by not having faith in something that may/may not have happened in the unobserved past. "There was flying spaghetti monster inside a teapot circling around the sun 5000 years ago that disappeared 50 seconds ago, its a scientific fact!" Do you believe my teapot monster? If no you are rejecting science. My claim has just as much as basis as any other that claims something about an event alleged to have happened in the unobserved, undocumented past. Except one of them is promoted by athiestic materialistic God haters and we have it fed to us daily on t.v, (the big bang show in Australia, David Attenboroughs documentaries*)
So we know what we are talking about Papias, please explain what the big bang model is?
*
Why doesn't Sir David Attenborough give credit to God?
"When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. ‘But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind.
‘And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all- merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.”"
So we know what we are talking about Papias, please explain what the big bang model is?
*
Why doesn't Sir David Attenborough give credit to God?
"When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. ‘But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind.
‘And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all- merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy.”"
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi Papias,
You responded to MM: MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant in nearly all areas of knowlege, including European history, foreign languages, and more. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in their ignorance or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
I agree 100% but the problem that always arises in this arena of discussion is always determining who is the ignorant one.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
You responded to MM: MM, it's OK to be ignorant - we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant in nearly all areas of knowlege, including European history, foreign languages, and more. However, when one is ignorant in an area, the person with integrity will humbly look to learn from those who know, and thus remove their own ignorance, instead of taking pride in their ignorance or thinking that they have any basis to disagree with the experts. This can be hard, because it goes against our human nature, and is even harder when creationist groups like AIG are actively working to get ministers take pride in their ignorance and thus to disagree with the experts.
I agree 100% but the problem that always arises in this arena of discussion is always determining who is the ignorant one.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Jinx wrote:
Of course they aren't, but that's not relevant here, because the Big Bang model is supported by observations, just as any other scientific finding. Practically all sciences rely on data about past events, often under unrepeatable circumstances. It's still reliable, and in fact, more reliable than written records by humans. That's why historians put more weight in scientific measurements than in recorded stories when reconstructing the past. After all, recorded stories give us the lost continent of Atlantis, giant ants that mine gold, and so on.
No, I'd be rejecting jinx's funny story......
No, it doesn't. You claim isn't supported by evidence, while the ones you attack are supported by evidence - evidence that you malign even though you don't understand it.
Um, you are aware, I hope, that most of the support for the age of the universe being longer than 10,000 years comes from Christians, right? I guess if you want me to take your claim seriously, supply some data supporting it, or drop it.
Why would I do that when I'm not a Big Bang expert, and can point you to those who are? What do you take me for, someone who is so arrogant that they would ignore the consensus view of the experts? Here is a good place to start if you really do want to learn: Evidence for the Big Bang
That leads to my repy to your statement in the other thread, where you also were ignoring the consensus view of those who actually understand the evidence. You are a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the less he or she thinks everyone else knows. Here it is:
**********************
jinx wrote:
This shows the core of why some people reject science. Because some people massively underestimate how much evidence there really is in any given field. When someone is ignorant, it is a natural human tendency to think that their isn't as much knowledge (the product of work) than there is. This is the source of the well established Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the more they overrate their own knowledge.
It may come as a surprise, but no, you can't "find out very quickly what "evidence" there is." It would take years of study, an advanced degree, years of apprenticship and research, and years on top of that, to even understand the evidence in one small subset supporting evolution, much less than 1% of the evidence for evolution there is. You can start here, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent but please don't think you'll have seen much of the evidence even if you understand all the evidence explained there.
That's why it is so sad to see someone confidently disagreeing with the experts. They are almost always ignorant of the mountains of evidence, lifetimes of work, and multiple confirmations from very different fields of study that go into the understanding the experts have. That's why creationists are doing more to show people that they can disregard Christianity than all the atheists in the world could only dream of doing.
Papias
***********************
from: http://www.christianforums.com/t7658942-26/
Papias
Of course they aren't, but that's not relevant here, because the Big Bang model is supported by observations, just as any other scientific finding. Practically all sciences rely on data about past events, often under unrepeatable circumstances. It's still reliable, and in fact, more reliable than written records by humans. That's why historians put more weight in scientific measurements than in recorded stories when reconstructing the past. After all, recorded stories give us the lost continent of Atlantis, giant ants that mine gold, and so on.
No, I'd be rejecting jinx's funny story......
No, it doesn't. You claim isn't supported by evidence, while the ones you attack are supported by evidence - evidence that you malign even though you don't understand it.
Um, you are aware, I hope, that most of the support for the age of the universe being longer than 10,000 years comes from Christians, right? I guess if you want me to take your claim seriously, supply some data supporting it, or drop it.
Why would I do that when I'm not a Big Bang expert, and can point you to those who are? What do you take me for, someone who is so arrogant that they would ignore the consensus view of the experts? Here is a good place to start if you really do want to learn: Evidence for the Big Bang
That leads to my repy to your statement in the other thread, where you also were ignoring the consensus view of those who actually understand the evidence. You are a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the less he or she thinks everyone else knows. Here it is:
**********************
jinx wrote:
This shows the core of why some people reject science. Because some people massively underestimate how much evidence there really is in any given field. When someone is ignorant, it is a natural human tendency to think that their isn't as much knowledge (the product of work) than there is. This is the source of the well established Dunning-Kruger effect, where the more ignorant someone is, the more they overrate their own knowledge.
It may come as a surprise, but no, you can't "find out very quickly what "evidence" there is." It would take years of study, an advanced degree, years of apprenticship and research, and years on top of that, to even understand the evidence in one small subset supporting evolution, much less than 1% of the evidence for evolution there is. You can start here, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent but please don't think you'll have seen much of the evidence even if you understand all the evidence explained there.
That's why it is so sad to see someone confidently disagreeing with the experts. They are almost always ignorant of the mountains of evidence, lifetimes of work, and multiple confirmations from very different fields of study that go into the understanding the experts have. That's why creationists are doing more to show people that they can disregard Christianity than all the atheists in the world could only dream of doing.
Papias
from: http://www.christianforums.com/t7658942-26/
Papias
Upvote
0
Talk origins intentionally deceives people that speciation=macro-evolution. Ok no problem. Speciation still wont change one 'kind' into another 'kind'. Noahs ark, entirety of land dwelling animals on the planet in one place at one time get released, low population sizes, there is genetic drift, low predation=speciation. How does fish-->human being predict speciation?
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
I should probably further clarify;
I have always been a fish, my ancestors have also always been fish, since the first fish. My ancestors have been tetrapods, since the first tetrapods. My ancestors have been reptiles, since the first reptile. My ancestors have been mammal since the first mammal. My ancestors have been primate since the first primate, my ancestors have been human, since the first human. My ancestors have been adamite, since the first adamite. However I am in Christ because he has chosen me.
I have always been a fish, my ancestors have also always been fish, since the first fish. My ancestors have been tetrapods, since the first tetrapods. My ancestors have been reptiles, since the first reptile. My ancestors have been mammal since the first mammal. My ancestors have been primate since the first primate, my ancestors have been human, since the first human. My ancestors have been adamite, since the first adamite. However I am in Christ because he has chosen me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
