Intelligent Falling

[Agonaces of Susa]

How about pretty much every domesticated animal that exists? Dogs, for example.

Domestic selection is not evolution since the DNA that contains the traits we selected already existed.

All domestic breeding does is prove an intelligent agent is required to select traits.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Bananas and dogs are for example something that man evolved.

LOL.

All domestic breeding does is prove intelligent design because intelligent agents are required to select the traits that God created.

What is "Darwinism" and "Scientism" and "Psuedo-Skepticism"?

The prevailing views in science.

Darwinism is the the as-of-yet unobserved but still PROVEN!!!11 concept that we all originally came from apes, who all originally came from rats, who all originally came from fish, who all originally came from soup, which originally came from nothing.

Scientism is the religious belief that contemporary science is infallible.

Pseudoskepticism is when people of the scientism faith are skeptical of any and all ideas which oppose scientism.

Thus, by your logic, it doesn't exist because it's not "observable".

Correct.

They don't.

They do.

Magnetism has to do what with gravity?

Absolutely everything.

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

"For, by the demonstration of the Englishman William Gilbert, the earth itself is a big magnet...." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, New Astronomy, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

Evolution has evidence. What "observable" evidence does creation have?

You yourself have claimed that domestic animals have been observed to have been created.

be corrected or be wrong about something.

When I believed in gravitation, the Big Bang, and evolution, I was very wrong. However I've since been corrected.

 

[rjw]

I knew you wouldn't be able to.

Just like you cannot observe protons and neutrons (see later), nor fusion reactions inside a star.

Atoms can be observed and have been observed since before Trojan times.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

Because people talk about them does not mean that they were observed. Von Daniken talks about aliens at Nasca. It hardly means he observed them.

I knew you wouldn't be able to name a newly evolved animal.

See above - at the start.

3.8 centimeters per year away from the Earth is not "pulled to the earth."

?

The earth is still pulling on it. Your comment is like saying that a rubber band cannot be stretched. Of course it can - all the while it is being stretched, the rubber is trying to restore the band back to its original state.

On a daily and nightly basis. Have you ever seen Saturn's rings effected by gravitation? I haven't.

They orbit Saturn.

"When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements [of Saturn's Rings] seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work." -- Ron Baalke, astrophysicist, 1998

The above quote is not talking about the rings per se. Rather is it talking about a phenomenon within the rings. That these spokes exhibit electromagnetic phenomena, hardly means that the rings themselves must.

I guess if you look through the wrong end with the lens cap still on and tell us what you imagine you see.

Of course, you could always address the point I made.

Everything in the universe is composed of magnets.

Everything in the universe that has mass also has gravitation. So what point are you trying to make?

Electrons generate a magnetic field.

"Diamagnetic substances include water, protein, diamond, DNA, plastic, wood, and many other common substances usually thought to be nonmagnetic." -- Martin D. Simon, professor, May 2000[/quote]

I see you still don't want to explain to me how come aircraft crash when their engines cut out - if gravity really does have nothing to do with it? I mean their engines cut out but all the electromagnetic fields that were there when they were flying, are still there when the engines cut out - yet they plummet to the earth.

How so?

Historical records are in fact data.

What? There is no historical record of aliens having built the pyramids or that stone wall, beyond the existence of the pyramids or that wall. So now, a stone wall is a "historical record"?

Your argument boils down to:-
1) Stone wall exists.
2) Von Daniken says aliens built it.
3) Therefore aliens built it.

Then every fragment of evidence from the past, including data from millions to billions of years ago must also be "historical record". And if I say that evolution produced it, then by golly, evolution must have produced it.

Yet again AoS, you cannot have it both ways.

Rank speculations.

So you assert.


I see you don't want to tell me how you know that 99% of historical record is accurate.

Why not.

Observed.

The you can show me, not a picture of the moon in the sky, nor a picture of a magnet, but rather a picture of electromagnetism itself actually holding the moon up?

I might just as well show you a picture of two masses attracting each other, and a picture of the moon in the sky - and say that this is a picture of gravity.

Subduction leads to mythology.

Which is odd from a person who can only say "observed" to things, but cannot actually provide me with pictures of these things happening, nor can he tell me how he knows that 99% of historical records are accurate.

"More realistically, the appropriate and credible physical metaphor for subduction would be of a wooden nail being projected very slowly into a cannon ball. This is, of course, impossible, even over infinite time...." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?" -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

?

I can just as easily quote someone arguing that aliens exist on Mars as quote some one who claims that they don't.

Therefore aliens both exist on Mars, and they don't, at the same time, because I can quote people?

Are you sure those people you quote are really saying what you want them to be saying - that subduction is a myth?

Observed.

Then you can show me a picture of some, a picture that is not taken by a machine and a picture that is not an interpretation of data?

I agree. For some reason atheists didn't believe in meteorites because they are in the Bible.

I am aware that a century or so ago, most folk (including theists) did not accept that stones fell from the sky. So how come this gets to be that it was atheists who did not believe it?

And people of the scientism faith still don't believe in meteorite craters because they contradict uniformitarianism.

So, just as above you imply that only atheists could not accept that stones fell from the sky, so here you imply that most geologists don't accept the reality of meteorite craters? (Most geologists I read still accept uniformatarianism. It's just that they are more nuanced about it because they also know that catastrophes do occur.)

So, since you appear to be arguing that most geologists refuse to accept the reality of meteorite craters, then how come, every modern geology paper I read, accepts their reality????

Historical records are nothing other than data from the past.

Good. Since you say this is so, then you will no longer automatically reject a claim I make simply because it uses data from the past?

Again, you cannot have it both ways.

False dichotomy. Historical records are in fact data from the past.

I do not deny this.

You have been making the distinction between historical record (which you accept) and historical data whenever I bring historical data into the argument.

I make a historical claim based on historical data and you immediately reject it. You make a historical claim, based on historical record (which you now admit is nothing more than historical data) and supposedly I am to accept it.

The distinction is yours. I am simply replying to it.


Finally, are you going to tell me how you manage to know that 99% of historical record is correct.

And will you address this question (for some reason you did not)-

AoS
If a scientist was involved in writing it it's probably wrong.

Rjw
Given all the peculiarities that humans exhibit at all times and across all cultures, you trust folk from the past who write history, but don't trust people now who do research?

How do you manage to work this out? Why are people in the past more trustworthy than people today?

Did you actually observe these people to know that they are more trustworthy?



Regards, Roland

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

They orbit Saturn.

The rings orbit Saturn in a flat plane perpindicular to the lines of force of Saturn's magnetic field. If gravitation were acting on the rings they would not be in a flat plane since gravitation is alleged to act equally in every direction.

Same is true of all planetary orbits.

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1946

The above quote is not talking about the rings per se.

When people say "Saturn's rings" that usually means they are talking about Saturn's rings.

Everything in the universe that has mass also has gravitation.

Mass is undefined.

So according to you, since photons have no mass they have no gravitation?

So what point are you trying to make?

I'm guessing you'll never know.

I see you still don't want to explain to me how come aircraft crash when their engines cut out - if gravity really does have nothing to do with it.

I mean their engines cut out but all the electromagnetic fields that were there when they were flying, are still there when the engines cut out - yet they plummet to the earth.

How so?

Gravity is electromagnetic.

What? There is no historical record of aliens having built the pyramids or that stone wall, beyond the existence of the pyramids or that wall. So now, a stone wall is a "historical record"?

This is a red herring that has nothing to do with Intelligent Falling.

Are you sure those people you quote are really saying what you want them to be saying - that subduction is a myth?

I'm definitely sure.

"Subduction is a myth." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

"Five propositions in Geology, namely Plate Tectonics, Constant Size Earth, Heat Engine Earth, Elastic Rebound, and the Organic Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are challenged as Myths because their potential truth is not confirmed by Observation, and/or Experiment, and/or Logic. In their place the Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - EMST, i.e., a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth and its implications, such as the Inorganic Origin of Hydrocarbons, claims to be a Comprehensive Proposition." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist/geoscientist, November 2007

I am aware that a century or so ago, most folk (including theists) did not accept that stones fell from the sky. So how come this gets to be that it was atheists who did not believe it?

Most theists believed in the Bible and the meteorites described therein.

So, just as above you imply that only atheists could not accept that stones fell from the sky, so here you imply that most geologists don't accept the reality of meteorite craters?

Correct.

"For a long time, people didn't really start to believe that asteroids could really hit the Earth and make a noticeable impression until the discovery of Meteor Crater. In fact, evidence proved that it had to have resulted from an asteroid impact. A scientist named Eugene Shoemaker found shocked quartz at the bottom of the crater and it's only possible to get this particular kind of glass with extremely high temperatures and pressures generated in an extremely short amount of time." -- Amy Mainzer, astronomer, March 4th 2008

(Most geologists I read still accept uniformatarianism.

That's because they deny the existence of meteorites.

It's just that they are more nuanced about it because they also know that catastrophes do occur.)

Uniformitarians are not catatrophists. In fact, uniformitarianism is the opposite of catastrophism.

So, since you appear to be arguing that most geologists refuse to accept the reality of meteorite craters, then how come, every modern geology paper I read, accepts their reality????

This contradicts your claim that most geologists you read still accept uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism says that catastrophism is impossible.

You have been making the distinction between historical record (which you accept) and historical data whenever I bring historical data into the argument.

I don't distinguish between them. The historical record is in fact historical data.

Finally, are you going to tell me how you manage to know that 99% of historical record is correct.

"... the only explanation possible is that the legends must be true." -- John H. Parker, archaeologist, The Archaeology of Rome, 1877

"... all the talk, all the legends, must be true." -- Paige W. Christiansen, historian, The Story of Mining in New Mexico, 1975

Why are people in the past more trustworthy than people today?

Because most of them didn't believe in scientism and the myth of progress but rather prisca sapientia.

"There is no teaching, but only recollection." -- Plato, philosopher, Meno, 380 B.C.

"Your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we learned that which we now recollect." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

 

[daniel192]

Domestic selection is not evolution since the DNA that contains the traits we selected already existed.

It is evolution. You just do not want to accept it.

The prevailing views in science.

Darwinism is the the as-of-yet unobserved but still PROVEN!!!11 concept that we all originally came from apes, who all originally came from rats, who all originally came from fish, who all originally came from soup, which originally came from nothing.

Scientism is the religious belief that contemporary science is infallible.

Pseudoskepticism is when people of the scientism faith are skeptical of any and all ideas which oppose scientism.

Prevailing?

Darwinism is an out-dated term coined by Thomas Huxley in 1860. Huxley himself accepted evolution.
Seriously, is that why you don't like evolution, because you've been taught the straw man version of it? No one who teaches, accepts or agrees with evolution says we come from apes. Are you really [pardon my ad hominen] that dumb to even so much as read about the concept. You can damn us to hell and call us god-hating atheists, but if we so much as say that your ancestor was an ape like creature you explode. If you wish to still live with that tired old straw man version of evolution, be my guest.

Scientism means that natural sciences have the authority over how life develops on this planet. It isn't a term that should be used.

Scientism faith? Oh please /facepalm, /headdesk.

<staff edit>
Adam-and-Evism, Floodism are all wildely accepted terms in the Christianist world.

 

[rjw]

The rings orbit Saturn in a flat plane perpindicular to the lines of force of Saturn's magnetic field. If gravitation were acting on the rings they would not be in a flat plane since gravitation is alleged to act equally in every direction.

Gravity might act equally in all directions but your description of this makes no sense.

How much physics have you actually studied?

Same is true of all planetary orbits.

But they don't orbit in a flat plane do they.

When people say "Saturn's rings" that usually means they are talking about Saturn's rings.

But your quote was not about the rings per se, was it. It was about something in the rings - the spokes. In fact the mention of Saturn is not in the original quote, is it?

Here is another quote I picked up from Frequently Asked Questions About Saturn's Rings (the bolded part is your quote) :-

"The spokes are strange dark radial features (as long as 20,000 km!) that move about in curious patterns on the B ring. Since the spokes have been observed on both sides of the ring plane, they are thought to be microscopic grains that have become charged and are levitating away the ring plane. Another possibility is a meteor punched through Saturn's rings, lifting dust particles away from the ring plane. When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work."

This was also written by Ron Baalke. So where do you get the idea that he was talking about the rings per se, and not something in the rings?

Mass is undefined.

?

So according to you, since photons have no mass they have no gravitation?

Given that you make a statement such as this, I can only ask again, how much physics have you actually studied - ever?

I'm guessing you'll never know.

I guess I could repeat the question and you would give the same answer?

Gravity is electromagnetic.

How does that address my question? Let me ask it again:-

Question from RjW to AoS
I see you still don't want to explain to me how come aircraft crash when their engines cut out - if gravity really does have nothing to do with it.

I mean their engines cut out but all the electromagnetic fields that were there when they were flying, are still there when the engines cut out - yet they plummet to the earth.

How so?

This is a red herring that has nothing to do with Intelligent Falling.

I have been asking it for a few posts now. How come it's now become a red herring.

It has everything to do with your credibility and you claim to believe only that which you observe plus historical record.

Since it has not been a red herring so far, then let me ask you again:-

Question from Rjw to AoS which has not been a red herring till now
What? There is no historical record of aliens having built the pyramids or that stone wall, beyond the existence of the pyramids or that wall. So now, a stone wall is a "historical record"?

And let me repeat this unanswered question that I keep on putting to you - when did von Daniken ever observe alien space ships at Nasca or aliens building those walls I mention above?

Did von Daniken observe these things or not?

I'm definitely sure.

"Subduction is a myth." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

But Carey is a scientist. He died only recently and taught geology at a regular institution.

I can quote another scientist who says Carey is wrong.

Since you do not trust scientists then how can you be sure when you quote one?

Most theists believed in the Bible and the meteorites described therein.

How do you know this? Did you ask most theists before a hundred years ago? Did most theists leave their historical record for you to read?

Correct.

You don't understand the things you quote, do you AoS. You just go out and surf the net and if you find something that you think makes your case because it has a few words you want, then you post it.

Shoemaker demonstrated the reality of meteorite impacts. Most geologists are realists. They may accept uniformatariansim but they also accept that meteorites have bombarded the earth and caused catastrophy. You only have to pick up any relevant paper from the geological literature to know this.

Shoemaker was a uniformatarianist. He had to be, to make sense of his observations and apply them to a past event.

"For a long time, people didn't really start to believe that asteroids could really hit the Earth and make a noticeable impression until the discovery of Meteor Crater. In fact, evidence proved that it had to have resulted from an asteroid impact. A scientist named Eugene Shoemaker found shocked quartz at the bottom of the crater and it's only possible to get this particular kind of glass with extremely high temperatures and pressures generated in an extremely short amount of time." -- Amy Mainzer, astronomer, March 4th 2008

You really need to read actual geological literature and stop surfing the net to find quotes that may contain a few words that you want. A quote having the words you want does not necessarily make your case.

Doing what you do, I could easily quote the Bible to prove that God does not exist. Here I go:-

"There is no God" Ps 14:1.

Thus the Bible proves that there is no God. See how easy it is to do what you do?

That's because they deny the existence of meteorites.

You really are making absolutely no sense.

Uniformitarians are not catatrophists. In fact, uniformitarianism is the opposite of catastrophism.

You are locked in a time warp of 50 years ago. Geologists moved on decades ago.

This contradicts your claim that most geologists you read still accept uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism says that catastrophism is impossible.

You are locked in a time warp of 50 years ago.

Geologists accept uniformatariansm because it allows them to make sense of the past. Thus, the present is the key to the past. Observations of processes occurring today, allows them to make sense of what they see in the geologic record. Geologists abandoned Lyell's extreme version of uniformatarianism 50 years ago.

They had to.

I don't distinguish between them. The historical record is in fact historical data.

However, there is historical record that is not man made, isn't there!

"... the only explanation possible is that the legends must be true." -- John H. Parker, archaeologist, The Archaeology of Rome, 1877

"... all the talk, all the legends, must be true." -- Paige W. Christiansen, historian, The Story of Mining in New Mexico, 1975

Again, how does this mean that 99% of historical record must be true. Did you or these people you quote actually go back and observe the ancients writing the record to be able to assure me that 99% of them are correct about what they wrote?

All you are doing is quoting me a few people (some of whom turn out to be scientists) then telling me that 99% of historical record must therefore be true.

I might just as well quote them and say therefore only 51% are true.

Besides Parker is an archaeologist, a scientist. You don't trust them, remember?

Because most of them didn't believe in scientism and the myth of progress but rather prisca sapientia.

"There is no teaching, but only recollection." -- Plato, philosopher, Meno, 380 B.C.

"Your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we learned that which we now recollect." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

So what has this got to do with you telling me that you manage to know that 99% of the historical record is correct?

Like I say, I could quote Plato and Socrates and assert "therefore only 20% of the historical record is correct".

Did you actually observe 99% of those who wrote their records to ensure that you have it correct?

Remember, if I produce evidence for an idea about a process you do not like, I have to actually show you the whole process. Otherwise you dismiss the evidence.

I do not like your idea that 99% of the historical record is correct. I want you to show me those historians writing as well as the events they wrote about, such that I can know you are not pulling the wool over my eyes.

Fair enough?



Regards, Roland

 

[Dark_Lite]

The rings orbit Saturn in a flat plane perpindicular to the lines of force of Saturn's magnetic field. If gravitation were acting on the rings they would not be in a flat plane since gravitation is alleged to act equally in every direction.

Uh, what is your definition of "flat plane?"

Saturn's rings are not a bunch of asteroids perfectly in line with each other on one invisible plane. As a grouping, they have height, width, and depth. It's really more like a prism bent around the planet.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I can't stand all of you Newtonians and your theory of gravity. We've never seen gravity happen. Newtonians and gravitationans have never proven gravity.
When people fall, it is because God is pushing them down.
Gravity is the most dangerous and dumbest religion on this planet.
On September the 11th, 2001, two planes were flown into the World Trade Center, killing 3000+ people. The hijackers were influenced by gravititionists because Newtonians had taught them that gravity made people fall and kill them.
The planets do not spin because of gravity, but because God does it. Black Holes are not "gravity" but gaps to heaven that God does not want you to enter. This is the most out dated theory and lie for the last 400 years.

This dangerous theory can now have an alternative.
We are trying to take out the Theory of Gravity and introduce a new way of learning why things fall.
Intelligent Falling leads those from the satanic path of gravity and leads them to the path of God and Intelligent Falling.



If you made it this far, THIS IS A SATIRE.

The Onion did this satire years ago.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

But they don't orbit in a flat plane do they.

In fact they do.

Uh, what is your definition of "flat plane?"

My definition of flat plane is Saturn's rings.

 

[rjw]

In fact they do.

My definition of flat plane is Saturn's rings.

Erm.

If you don't take the quote out of context, then you will see that I was referring to your claim about the planets.

Go back and read our exchange.

Clearly you are not a very reliable eye-witness, are you.



Regards, Roland

 

[Split Rock]

I'm sorry AoS, but you seem like a troll to me

How long did it take you to figure this out??

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

When our solar system formed, it was mostly comprised of gas and dust. Because those particles began to attract each other due to gravity, matter began to fell into the center of the cloud, forming the sun first. As it grew, it began to spin and the gravitational field generated, began rotate with it. This had the effect of packing the dust cloud into an "accretion disk". Over time, of course, the materials in the disk formed planets. Such disks have been observed in other systems, as well as in Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranos. Pluto doesn't orbit the Sun in a flat plane like other planets, which has led to believe that Pluto was once a wandering planet, which was captured by the Suns gravity.

You have no evidence of that.

That is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

Everything with either mass, energy or momentum have gravity. Since photons have both energy and momentum they have gravity.

How come when you look at objects you don't see gravitational lensing?

Who denies the existence of meteorites? Please, I'm interested in hearing more

Secular scientists.

"Stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky!" -- Antoine L. Lavoisier, chemist, 1790

"Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven." -- Thomas Jefferson, revolutionary, 1807

"Catastrophism was an eighteenth -- and nineteenth -- century attempt to reconcile some form of creationism with the uncomfortable facts of the fossil record." -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 1986

Yes it is.

"In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek &#956;&#8118;&#950;&#945 commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent: inertial mass, active gravitational mass and passive gravitational mass. In everyday usage, mass is often taken to mean weight, but in scientific use, they refer to different properties." - Wikipedia.

Meaningless.

Do you actually have an opinion of your own or do you just copy - paste others?

My opinions are my own and they come from antiquity.

Do you actually have an opinion of your own or do you just copy -paste Newton, Darwin, and Einstein?

You claim 99% of historical records and legends are true?

Correct.

"... the only explanation possible is that the legends must be true." -- John H. Parker, archaeologist, The Archaeology of Rome, 1877

"... all the talk, all the legends, must be true." -- Paige W. Christiansen, historian, The Story of Mining in New Mexico, 1975

Cool, now we know a centaurs exist

Correct.

"... put kind medicines on it,
good ones, which they say you have been told of by Achilleus,
since Cheiron, most righteous of the Centaurs, told him about them."
-- Homer, poet, Iliad, Book XI: 830-832, 8th century B.C.

"Decide no suit until you have heard both sides speak." -- Hesiod, poet, The Precepts of Chiron, 8th century B.C. (quoted in Plutarch's Morals)

"The son of bold Ixion, Pirithous wedding Hippodame, had asked as guests the cloud-born centaurs to recline around the ordered tables, in a cool cave, set under some shading trees. Thessalian chiefs were there and I [Nestor] myself was with them there." -- Ovid, poet, Metamorphoses, Book XII, 1st century B.C.

"The Centaurs, however, becoming drunken assaulted the female guests and lay with them by violence, whereupon both Theseus and Lapiths, incensed by such a display of lawlessness, slew not a few of them and drove the rest out of the city. Because of this the Centaurs gathered their forces, made a campaign against Lapiths, and slew many of them, the survivors fleeing into Mt. Pholoe in Arcadia and ultimately escaping from there to Cape Malea, where they made their home. And the Centaurs, elated by these successes, made Mt. Pholoe the base of their operations, plundered the Greeks who passed by, and slew many of their neighbours." -- Diodorus Siculus, historian, The Library of History, Book IV, 71:3-4, 1st century B.C.

"Other human figures were to be seen with the legs and horns of goats: some had horses' feet: while others united the hind quarters of a horse with the body of a man, resembling in shape the hippocentaurs." -- [Lucius C.] Alexander "Polyhistor", tutor, 1st century B.C.

cerberus dwells in the underworld, which exist because its a legend

Correct.

"Hades [Pluto] trembled where he rules over the dead below, and the Titans under Tartarus who live with Cronos [Saturn] ...." -- Hesiod, poet, Theogony, 8th century B.C.

cyclops, zeus

Zeus is the planet Jupiter.

hera, toothfairy, chimera.... All legit and true.

"My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty, I learnt in the nursery. ... The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales. They seem to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not fantasies: compared with them other things that are fantastic. ... Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter IV: The Ethics of Elfland, 1909

On a serious note, it would be ludicrous to take all historical records as fact, without examining it further, and proving its credibility.

Why don't you examine history further and prove it's credibility?

 

[RealityCheck]

You have no evidence of that.

That is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

No, it is a theory for which there has been plenty of evidence gathered over the past several decades. The mere fact that you don't know what that evidence is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How come when you look at objects you don't see gravitational lensing?

Oy. This really can't be answered for you. Not because there is no answer, but because you clearly lack the basic training in basic science to begin to understand the answer. How do I know this? Well, the first piece of evidence is above - that you are unaware of the evidence for the current, best-supported theory for the solar system's formation. Second is your tagline "Evolution is a hoax" - clearly indicating you do not know the scientific bases for evolutionary theory. And then there are gems like agreeing that centaurs are real, that the planet Jupiter is Zeus, and that Thomas Jefferson was a scientist.

I think that your questions are not worth answering, here or in any other thread. You clearly have no interest in science at all.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think that your questions are not worth answering, here or in any other thread.

Yet there you are, responding, here, in this thread, claiming that you are thinking otherwise. Or perhaps you are not actually there. That's pretty close to it.

 

[MorkandMindy]

No, it is a theory for which there has been plenty of evidence gathered over the past several decades. The mere fact that you don't know what that evidence is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I won't dispute that, but sola scriptura means 'by scripture alone' (which along with sola fide are the foundations of Protestant Christianity).

The first question is whether the theory of universal gravitation (note it is a theory, cooked up by Isaac Newton who was heavily into alchemy and became very bad tempered toward the end of his life) is found in scripture and it is not.

The same applies to the General Theory of Relativity; it is not in my concordance at all


The second question is whether it is in conflict with scripture.

Col 1 17: 'He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.'

The OP is entirely correct, scripture does not say 'as a result of gravity' but that it is God who holds all things together

.

 

[Nabobalis]

I won't dispute that, but sola scriptura means 'by scripture alone' (which along with sola fide are the foundations of Protestant Christianity).

The first question is whether the theory of universal gravitation (note it is a theory, cooked up by Isaac Newton who was heavily into alchemy and became very bad tempered toward the end of his life) is found in scripture and it is not.

The same applies to the General Theory of Relativity; it is not in my concordance at all


The second question is whether it is in conflict with scripture.

Col 1 17: 'He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.'

The OP is entirely correct, scripture does not say 'as a result of gravity' but that it is God who holds all things together

.

So if it is not in the scripture, it doesn't exist in real life?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

So if it is not in the scripture, it doesn't exist in real life?

You can't be serious.

No fundamentalist believer on Earth thinks that.

The problem is that certain unbelievers think everything in the Bible is fiction, thus according to them the Earth does not exist.

 

[Spacewyrm]

You can't be serious.

No fundamentalist believer on Earth thinks that.

The problem is that certain unbelievers think everything in the Bible is fiction, thus according to them the Earth does not exist.

The problem is that certain believers think everything in the theory of evolution is fiction, thus according to them human beings do not exist.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The problem is that certain believers think everything in the theory of evolution is fiction, thus according to them human beings do not exist.

I am a believer and I certainly think biological evolution (common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation) is pseudoscience fiction. However I also believe human beings exist. Therefore your words are all bytes and no meaning.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I am a believer and I certainly think biological evolution (common descent from a single ancestor via natural selection and undirected mutation) is pseudoscience fiction. However I also believe human beings exist. Therefore your words are all bytes and no meaning.

If there are any non-believers who deny that the Earth exists, then you deny that human beings exist. It is exactly the same "reasoning".