Moon was Created

[Split Rock]

No, men landed there. Men that were smitten with a spiritual impact that reverberated through the rest of their lives. The message sent back was not one of cheese, but of a resounding confirmation God created.

That doesn't mean God didn't make the moon out of Blue Cheese. Sure, there are rocks on the surface... but you cannot prove there isn't cheese underneath!

The Big Whack theory of science is so insane, and weak, and unsupportable, no one here dared to rush in to defend it. That should tell you something, kids. Time to whack that nonsense out of the park.

I agree! Errr... what is the "Big Whack" theory by the way??

 

[FishFace]

I'm convinced Split - there's no reason to believe that the moon isn't made of cheese!

 

[Split Rock]

I'm convinced Split - there's no reason to believe that the moon isn't made of cheese!

Exactly!!!!!!!1111

Therefore, we should be teaching students what I like to call A.C.T. or "Alternate Cheese theory." Teach both sides of the debate I say, and let the students decide for themselves if the moon is made of rocks, or Blue Cheese.

 

[dad]

So, you make an unfalsifiable claim and then use lack of contrary evidence as proof that you are correct. I'm not even sure that I can put into words how horrible your logic is.

What claim is that? And how would you falsify the assumption of science, that the state of the past was the same??

 

[dad]

The only history presented was that some folks believed in spirits under the earth - not a good reason.

Who says there was not very good reasons, how would you know? That is an argument from bias, and ignorance.

"It's in the Bible" is not a good reason, plus when asked for specific verses, you didn't present anything relevant.

I have in the past. There is quite a bit here.

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/

I asked for a reason to believe not a reason to not disbelieve.

The bible past is different. That does it for me. Right there it rules out all guesses, assumptions, and endless what iffing about some cooked up contrary claims. The bible is respected, and tested enough, that it warrants that much. You'll need a lot more that a mickey mouse philosophy class and a bunch of fables about a hot little speck universe, to convince me.

So basically dad, your answer was a big fat NO. You presented three things, none of which are good reasons.

You have no reasons, good bad or ugly, to believe your assumption about this temporary universe extending to infinity and beyond.
Denying all spiritual reality, and history, and bible for no reason at all is no way to get at the truth. Assuming one wanted to get there, of course.

 

[dad]

That doesn't mean God didn't make the moon out of Blue Cheese. Sure, there are rocks on the surface... but you cannot prove there isn't cheese underneath!


I agree! Errr... what is the "Big Whack" theory by the way??

I think it is in the OP. Anyhow, it is a name that the current science explanation of how the moon was created. I think it may also be referred to as the impact theory.

 

[Patashu]

What claim is that? And how would you falsify the assumption of science, that the state of the past was the same??

By showing that one or more physical constants/physical laws must have changed in the past, of course.

 

[dad]

I'm convinced Split - there's no reason to believe that the moon isn't made of cheese!

No need to extend your denial of spiritual reality, to the area of actual science, and the physical. How you think that helps your lack of a case, I don't know.

 

[keith99]

That doesn't mean God didn't make the moon out of Blue Cheese. Sure, there are rocks on the surface... but you cannot prove there isn't cheese underneath!

I demand equal time for Swiss Cheese!

 

[AirPo]

That theory is so full of holes.

 

[Parmenio]

Of course dad has yet to disprove LastThursdayism. As soon as he can do that he can move forward with his accusation that science unnecessarily assumes a constant set of physical laws.

 

[dad]

By showing that one or more physical constants/physical laws must have changed in the past, of course.

I don't think they existed, so why would they change? Just like they can't exist in heaven. Man was created in a universe that man was to be master of, apparently. A universe that responded to our will, some feel, like it responded to the will of Jesus. (Calming the sea, etc) That requires a spiritual component.
To think of the majestic royal powerful destiny of man, and his primary place in the universe, and how man has debased it to hell is amazing. The contrast is stark. Rather than masters of the earth, angels, and universe, they have made man as four footed beasts, and creation as a self sustaining fluke fest, with no reason or rhyme, all the while denying things spiritual.

Science cannot tell us what laws were here, if these laws of our temporary universe were not in place! The bible does give us some glimpses of eternity, however. Why not avail yourself of them?

 

[dad]

That theory is so full of holes.

Is there some reason you always post meaningless fluff? I mean, one would assume that you came to a science forum to do more than get a high post count.

 

[dad]

Of course dad has yet to disprove LastThursdayism. As soon as he can do that he can move forward with his accusation that science unnecessarily assumes a constant set of physical laws.

It is necessary for observed history. But that ain't very long. Don't flatter yourself.

 

[FishFace]

Who says there was not very good reasons, how would you know? That is an argument from bias, and ignorance.

Fact: "if someone believes something, that is no indication of its truth."
Corollary: "if many people believe something, that is no indication of its truth."

Those are facts, plain and simple.

I have in the past. There is quite a bit here.

http://www.geocities.com/lovecreates/

Post one bible quote that supports your claim. Not that it will matter.

The bible past is different. That does it for me. Right there it rules out all guesses, assumptions, and endless what iffing about some cooked up contrary claims. The bible is respected, and tested enough, that it warrants that much. You'll need a lot more that a mickey mouse philosophy class and a bunch of fables about a hot little speck universe, to convince me.

No reason to believe here! The Bible is a book, and if you want me to treat it differently, you have to give me a (good) reason.

You have no reasons, good bad or ugly, to believe your assumption about this temporary universe extending to infinity and beyond.
Denying all spiritual reality, and history, and bible for no reason at all is no way to get at the truth. Assuming one wanted to get there, of course.

Dad has once again provided NO GOOD REASON to believe there are spirits under the earth.

 

[AirPo]

Is there some reason you always post meaningless fluff?

No, is there some reason you always post meaningless fluff?

I mean, one would assume that you came to a science forum to do more than get a high post count.

I come for the entertainment, how about you.

 

[Parmenio]

I come for the entertainment, how about you.

When it's dad. Yeah, I'm here for the show.

I've gone through my trial by fire with dad. Now I get to enjoy others torture themselves

 

[dad]

I come for the entertainment, how about you.

No, for imput, although the sparring partners just can't seem to put up much of a fight these days.
But you really should try to address the issues. For example in this thread, maybe defend the big whack, or challenge the records of an underworld in different cultures, etc.

 

[dad]

Fact: "if someone believes something, that is no indication of its truth."
Corollary: "if many people believe something, that is no indication of its truth."

Those are facts, plain and simple.

So, you believing in a same past is no indication of truth. Thought so. Now, if you had the miracles, and dead raised up, and virgin birth, and etc etc etc that the bible has in spades, you might have a little more than what you are talking about. Fact.

Post one bible quote that supports your claim. Not that it will matter.

Ge 10:25 - And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

No reason to believe here! The Bible is a book, and if you want me to treat it differently, you have to give me a (good) reason.

Well if all you look for is a reason to believe, rather than present a science case that is solid, there are only so many places one can look.

Dad has once again provided NO GOOD REASON to believe there are spirits under the earth.

Jesus visited them. Science never has been there to say yea, or nay. What more could anyone wish for?

 

[RangerJoe]

No, for imput, although the sparring partners just can't seem to put up much of a fight these days.
But you really should try to address the issues. For example in this thread, maybe defend the big whack, or challenge the records of an underworld in different cultures, etc.

Putting up a good fight happened before page 50...After that its just like taking a few paces backwards and running headlong into a wall. I am definitely here for the entertainment.