Is gravity a push or a pull?

[Jazer]

you are funny! science has given you nothing but falsification and you didnt even notice!

Science has given us zero, zip, zilch falsification for the BIBLE. Science has only falsified various interpertations for the Bible. So what, there was conflict among all the different christians on HOW TO INTERPERT the Bible.

Your error is to confuse the Bible with all the various interpertations of the Bible. My dad would say we do not know who to believe. I say use Science to interprete the Bible. Allow the Scientific methoid to be your interpreter of the Bible. If you trust Science with your life, then trust them to help you understand the meaning and teaching of the Bible. If you trust Science to teach you evolution, then trust Science to teach you the Bible and what we can learn from the Bible.

It is up to each individual to discover truth for themselves. We can not teach truth, people have to find it for themselves. If people have not yet discovered the truth, we can only hope that someday they well.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Science has given us zero, zip, zilch falsification for the BIBLE. Science has only falsified various interpertations for the Bible. So what, there was conflict among all the different christians on HOW TO INTERPERT the Bible.

Your error is to confuse the Bible with all the various interpertations of the Bible. My dad would say we do not know who to believe. I say use Science to interprete the Bible. Allow the Scientific methoid to be your interpreter of the Bible. If you trust Science with your life, then trust them to help you understand the meaning and teaching of the Bible. If you trust Science to teach you evolution, then trust Science to teach you the Bible and what we can learn from the Bible.

It is up to each individual to discover truth for themselves. We can not teach truth, people have to find it for themselves. If people have not yet discovered the truth, we can only hope that someday they well.

I think Hespera was talking about creationism, nit the Bible as a whole.

 

[Jazer]

I think Hespera was talking about creationism, nit the Bible as a whole.

You mean religion is wrong because there are YEC creationists that think a day in the Bible is a literal 24 hour period of time. That does not sound open minded to me. I argue against the literal 24 hour day belief also. The Bible says a day is 1000 years. The world we live in began at the end of the ice age 12,982 years ago. Science and the Bible agree.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

You mean religion is wrong because there are YEC creationists that think a day in the Bible is a literal 24 hour period of time.

No! What? No! This is the science forum. We're only talking about creationism here. We're not trying to disprove religion in general, just creationism, If you're not a YEC then we don't really disagree and why are we even arguing?

 

[Hespera]

Science has given us zero, zip, zilch falsification for the BIBLE. Science has only falsified various interpertations for the Bible. So what, there was conflict among all the different christians on HOW TO INTERPERT the Bible.

Your error is to confuse the Bible with all the various interpertations of the Bible. My dad would say we do not know who to believe. I say use Science to interprete the Bible. Allow the Scientific methoid to be your interpreter of the Bible. If you trust Science with your life, then trust them to help you understand the meaning and teaching of the Bible. If you trust Science to teach you evolution, then trust Science to teach you the Bible and what we can learn from the Bible.

It is up to each individual to discover truth for themselves. We can not teach truth, people have to find it for themselves. If people have not yet discovered the truth, we can only hope that someday they well.

Science has given us zero, zip, zilch falsification for the BIBLE. Science has only falsified various interpertations for the Bible. So what, there was conflict among all the different christians on HOW TO INTERPERT the Bible

.

i didnt of course say that science falsified the bible, a ridiculous thing for anyone to say.

The bible does of course say some things quite plainly, like the noahs ark story; but fine, as long as a person is free to interpret the bible to mean anything they like then sure, it cant be falsified. Moving target and all.

A judge, prosecutor or jury might choose the same method, and "interpret' your testimony so that you are guilty no matter what you thought you said.

Perhaps you have a version of noahs ark that cant be falsified by science?

Your error is to confuse the Bible with all the various interpertations of the Bible. My dad would say we do not know who to believe. I say use Science to interprete the Bible. Allow the Scientific methoid to be your interpreter of the Bible. If you trust Science with your life, then trust them to help you understand the meaning and teaching of the Bible. If you trust Science to teach you evolution, then trust Science to teach you the Bible and what we can learn from the Bible.

not really, Your error is to take what i said and interpret it to your taste.


Lets stry it put this way. Ther is no claim taht creationism has made that is backed by science. Science either has no data on the subject, or, the data will act to falsify the creao claim.

If people have not yet discovered the truth, we can only hope that someday they well

"Truth" yes. That ever elusive word. What is truth, and all that.
I will leave that to the philosophers who i find are the most mixed up people on campus.

But my topic was not anything about the quest for "Truth', just that evolution is supported by all available relevant data and creationism is falsified by all available relevant data.

I say use Science to interprete the Bible. Allow the Scientific methoid to be your interpreter of the Bible. If you trust Science with your life, then trust them to help you understand the meaning and teaching of the Bible

.


Do as you say and you soon will cease to be a creationist.

 

[Hespera]

You mean religion is wrong because there are YEC creationists that think a day in the Bible is a literal 24 hour period of time. That does not sound open minded to me. I argue against the literal 24 hour day belief also. The Bible says a day is 1000 years. The world we live in began at the end of the ice age 12,982 years ago. Science and the Bible agree.

Science sure as heck does not say this.

 

[Jazer]

Vaccum does not need cleaning.

My vaccum sure needs cleaning. Esp when the hair pins get stuck and clog up the hose.

 

[Jazer]

Science sure as heck does not say this.

Science does not say that the ice age ended and the neolithic age began around 13,000 years ago?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Science does not say that the ice age ended and the neolithic age began around 13,000 years ago?

No. It says that the end of the last glacial period (not the last ice age) ended about 12,500 years ago - the last ice age is, in fact, the current one, and it looks like we'll be in it for a while yet.

It also says that the Neolithic Age does not have a set starting date. Rather, different areas and cultures entered the Neolithic at different times - the Middle-East experienced the Neolithic at about 10,500-9,500 BCE, while India experience it at about 3,000 BCE.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Shift the goalposts at need, and you can always be right.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jazer]

It also says that the Neolithic Age does not have a set starting date.

That is why I use the nanodiamond date of 12,900. Nanodiamond is a good google search word.

 

[AV1611VET]

Shift the goalposts at need, and you can always be right.

Scientists do that with time; one of my pet peeves.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is why I use the nanodiamond date of 12,900. Nanodiamond is a good google search word.

I googled 'nanodiamond' and found nothing of relevance; the pages linked are either explanations of how nanodiamonds form when detonating a mix of TNT/RDX, or how they can deliver chemotherapy drugs and help shrink tumours.

The neolithic is a period of cultural development that began when a particular culture did something new - music, pottery, etc. As such, it is not a set period in history, but occurred at different times in different places - generally about 5000 to 1000 years ago.
The ice age is ongoing. We are, at best, between glacial periods, but we're still living in an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 12,500 years ago.

If you think nanodiamonds have anything to do with refuting either of those things, then just say it.

 

[Jazer]

I googled 'nanodiamond' and found nothing of relevance;

nanodiamond 12,900 was fifth on the list. Why would you get different results from what I got?

Six North American Sites Hold 12900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil
Six North American Sites Hold 12,900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil - CachedJan 2, 2009 – Abundant tiny particles of diamond dust exist in sediments dating to 12900 years ago at six North American sites, adding strong evidence for ...

The last glacial period ended about 12,500 years ago.

So we agree. Only you use the word "period" and I use the word "age". I can tell your not married because if you were then you would know that periods do not ever end, they just do on forever. Or at least it seems that way.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

nanodiamond 12,900 was fifth on the list. Why would you get different results from what I got?

Google personalises results based on past articles and searches, and preferentially selects towards IP-determined geographical location (i.e., I get more UK-based hits, and less US ones).

Six North American Sites Hold 12900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil
Six North American Sites Hold 12,900-year-old Nanodiamond-rich Soil - CachedJan 2, 2009 – Abundant tiny particles of diamond dust exist in sediments dating to 12900 years ago at six North American sites, adding strong evidence for ...

Presumably you're referring to the destruction of the Clovis culture. Well, from the same site:

No evidence for Clovis comet catastrophe, archaeologists say

So we agree. Only you use the word "period" and I use the word "age".

No. You asked if science says the last ice age ended 13,000 years ago, and the answer is that science says we're in an ice age right now. If you don't know the difference between an ice age and a glacial period, then why should we trust you when you wax philosophic about how the science of ice ages supports the Bible? You've yet to enlighten us how, even if you were correct, ice ages and nanodiamonds bear any relevance to the topic at hand.

Thus far, you've cited nanodiamonds, presumably a cryptic reference to the apparent destruction of the Clovis culture in North America 12-13 thousand years ago due to comets that left residual nanodiamonds (later research has shown that no such impact occurred). And, you cited ice ages, presumably referring to the last glacial period, shortly after which the Clovis culture first emerged. Fascinating in its own right, but you've yet to explain how this demonstrates that science says that "[t]he world we live in began at the end of the ice age 12,982 years ago. Science and the Bible agree." (post #63).

So let's say the Neolithic did occur at one time (rather than over a period of several thousand years), let's say the last ice age did end thousands of years ago (rather than being an on-going event), let's say the Clovis culture were wiped out by comets (rather than by the over-hunting of mega-fauna and cultural dissemination) - so what? Join the dots for me.

I can tell your not married because if you were then you would know that periods do not ever end, they just do on forever. Or at least it seems that way.

I can't tell if you're making a crude joke about menstruation, but if you are, it's pretty distasteful.

 

[Jazer]

So let's say the Neolithic did occur at one time (rather than over a period of several thousand years), let's say the last ice age did end thousands of years ago (rather than being an on-going event), let's say the Clovis culture were wiped out by comets (rather than by the over-hunting of mega-fauna and cultural dissemination) - so what? Join the dots for me.

Something ended and something began. Call it whatever you want to call it.
There are lots and lots of labels & terms to choose from.

All that the Bible requires is darkness. "1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." "without form and void" for GAP means the Earth was in a state of ruin. One age was ending a new age was beginning. This took place 12,900 years ago. The date I had was 12,982 years ago.

It is not the Clovis culture that the Bible deals with. It is the people we now refer to as Hebrews in Israel. The J Haplogroup Y-DNA people. God began a work in the Hebrew people and from there to the rest of mankind all over the world. If God was doing a work with the Clovis culture there is no record of it like we have with the Bible and the Hebrew nation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Something ended and something began. Call it whatever you want to call it.
There are lots and lots of labels & terms to choose from.

Indeed, and science tells us how to pick the right one. In this case, a particularly prescient adage applies: "Correlation does not imply causation". That two things happened to occur at the same time does not demonstrate a causal relationship between the two - even less when the two events are separated by both thousands of years.

So what do I call it? Coincidence. If you want to convince us that something more is at work, well, the floor is open.

All that the Bible requires is darkness. "1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." "without form and void" for GAP means the Earth was in a state of ruin.

Do you have any Biblical support on that one?

One age was ending a new age was beginning. This took place 12,900 years ago. The date I had was 12,982 years ago.

And yet, the Earth wasn't in a state of ruin 13,000 years ago. I agree that the last glacial period lulled to its current minimum around that time, but that's about it. The Neolithic occurred between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago in stages across the world's cultures, not simultaneously 12,982 years ago.

It is not the Clovis culture that the Bible deals with. It is the people we now refer to as Hebrews in Israel. The J Haplogroup Y-DNA people. God began a work in the Hebrew people and from there to the rest of mankind all over the world. If God was doing a work with the Clovis culture there is no record of it like we have with the Bible and the Hebrew nation.

Then why bring it up? You made cryptic references to nanodiamonds, then cited an article that suggested comets hit the Earth 12,500 years ago and wiped out the Clovis culture - neither of which actually happened. Explicitly state your point, and we can move past this game of 20-questions.

 

[Jazer]

Do you have any Biblical support on that one?

This is the foundation of the GAP theory. Gen 1:2 & Jeremiah 4:23 are the same. In fact there is a lot of detail in Jer ch 4 about Isreal being without form and void.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.

And yet, the Earth wasn't in a state of ruin 13,000 years ago.

Maybe not where you live but it was pretty much a mess here. There is about 15 to 26 feet of muck that was left behind when the glaciers melted. Also a lot of areas were going underwater. That is where we get our coral reefs and they have done a lot of exploration looking for oil. So they know quite a bit about it with the deep pockets of the oil companies paying in the hope of finding off shore oil reserves.

Everything in between must have had a lot of violent weather with high winds. We are getting a lot of problems with the weather with just the little tiny bit of global warming we are going though now. Ice melts and without the weight the land in some places rises up higher. There are going to be earthquakes from the big shake up. No one know the exact reason but there was a massive extinction at this time. The holocene extinction.

Perhaps you see no

Do you have any Biblical support on that one?

This is the foundation of the GAP theory. Gen 1:2 & Jeremiah 4:23 are the same. In fact there is a lot of detail in Jer ch 4 about Isreal being without forum and void.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, [it was] without form, and void; and the heavens, and they [had] no light.

And yet, the Earth wasn't in a state of ruin 13,000 years ago.

Maybe not where you live but it was pretty much a mess here. There is about 15 to 26 feet of muck that was left behind when the glaciers melted. Also a lot of areas were going underwater. That is where we get our coral reefs and they have done a lot of exploration looking for oil. So they know quite a bit about it with the deep pockets of the oil companies paying in the hope of finding off shore oil reserves.

Everything in between must have had a lot of violent weather with high winds. We are getting a lot of problems with the weather with just the little tiny bit of global warming we are going though now. Ice melts and without the weight the land in some places rises up higher. There are going to be earthquakes from the big shake up. No one know the exact reason but there was a massive extinction at this time. The holocene extinction.

Perhaps you see no correlation between science and the Bible, but I do. I find it all very interesting.

 

[razeontherock]

Do you have any Biblical support on that one?

This would almost be a one-off, except it says "replenish" the Earth. The Hebrew for what we have as 'without form and void' is very interesting, and intentionally mysterious. It would take many English words to do it justice and even then, we wouldn't have a decent rendition.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So...how did this thread turn from what was basically a physics question, to what is basically an impasse between two groups of idiots, neither of whom can empathize sufficiently with the other to ever do anything but completely fail at delivering an argument that is convincing to the opposite side?

Indeed, and science tells us how to pick the right one. In this case, a particularly prescient adage applies: "Correlation does not imply causation". That two things happened to occur at the same time does not demonstrate a causal relationship between the two - even less when the two events are separated by both thousands of years.

Technically, yes, it does. Given that A correlates with B, it is more likely that B is caused by A than if A did not correlate with B. Only very slightly more likely, but correlation still implies causation. Just not in the way that some people would like to think.