juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't know what you referred to. But I am sure I have never done that.
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.
I wasn't commenting on your latest bizarre idea but your condemning a fellow creationist for having his own view on Genesis.
Catch me up a little bit here Juve, are you talking about String Theory?
What is obvious to me from Genesis 1 is that our understanding is not the same as God's understanding and his measurements are not necessarily the same as ours all the time.
In verse 5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then in verse 14, 3 'days' later
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years ...
I was talking about this one:I don't know what you referred to. But I am sure I have never done that.I wasn't commenting on your latest bizarre idea but your condemning a fellow creationist for having his own view on Genesis.
If you do not deal with the problems (of the Gap theory), you are cheating yourself. This will certainly have consequence to your reward in the Heaven.Faith.Man said:I do not have the energy or inclination to teach you about the Gap Theory. From your comments, I do not believe you are teachable on this subject ... but that's just my opinion.
I was talking about this one:
Originally Posted by juvenissun
If you do not deal with the problems (of the Gap theory), you are cheating yourself. This will certainly have consequence to your reward in the Heaven.Originally Posted by Faith.Man
I do not have the energy or inclination to teach you about the Gap Theory. From your comments, I do not believe you are teachable on this subject ... but that's just my opinion.
So you didn't mean that threat about "consequence to your reward in the Heaven"?It happens that I need some information about the Gap Theory shortly. And Faith.Man said he is a Gap theory advocator. So, I thought may be he can teach me something about it. But he replied that I really don't want to learn.
My interpretation is that he does not know much about the Gap theory. And I replied that if he is for the theory, but is afraid of facing questions about the theory, then he is simply hiding behind the comfortable cocoon. I was not criticizing anything about his stand on creationism.
One thing he said, and I am very curious about is that he thought the formless and void status of the "earth" was not caused by Satan. I simply don't understand it. If not, then why was the earth like that?
Can you say something about it? (I do understand the time, and the fossils stuff of the theory).
If you are a TE, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see evolution as factual, and therefore the Bible needed to reflect that? Or did you see a non-literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore evolution may be true?
If you are a creationist, what convinced you to be one? Did you always see a young earth in the evidence, therefore the Bible must reflect that? Or did you see a literal interpretation of Genesis first, and therefore young earth must be true?
Density wave theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
watch the 3 movies. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that movie 1 is reality. A YEC will believe movie 2 and anybody that believes in an old earth must believe in movie 3. The problem is that movie 3 is pure speculation and only exists because it must exist if the universe is old. Logically, movie 2 would be the observation that best fits the data, but you just can't believe that if the universe is old.
So your saying that because we don't fully understand one thing which is millions of miles away we should throw out all the data that points to an old earth which is much easier to test?
Maybe 2 or 3 make sense, but 3 makes sense with the everything else we know.
to make the music of the spheres, of course!So why are there still barred galaxies? They have been around the same length of time as the ones that wound themselves into spiral galaxies.
So why are there still barred galaxies? They have been around the same length of time as the ones that wound themselves into spiral galaxies.
personally, I think the planets are not in orbit. I think they are gravitating toward the center and they always have been. So I guess if that is true then we will loose them in 15 million years or so. Also, I am not positive there are any 'pure' barred galaxies. the only pictures I have seen have a little spiral on the perimeter.
It is also interesting to note, When people analyze the pictures from the Hubble telescope, they say they can identify smallish spiral galaxies that have been distorted by the gravity of a larger neighbor. Seems to me that they don't buy the density wave theory because if they did, they could not infer that gravity of neighboring galaxies could cause any disruption.
Also, we would have to redo the maps of the local arm of our galaxy since they display the stars as being unevenly distributed. We would also need a theory as to why we cannot see these very close [comparatively] planetary bodies and stars in our own backyard.
Thank you for explaining that. I was under a completely different impression of what density waves were. I thought the theory said that all matter in any given galaxy is evenly distributed. However, there are undetectable "density waves" that intensify the visibility of the objects in the density wave. This, of course would reduce the credibility of the density wave theory down to the level of credibility of other theories such as aether, phlogiston, and God. That is to say if a person makes an observation that they cannot explain then they simply attribute the cause to something they cannot detect. That is not science as it is not observable or testable. However, I think you have given me a much clearer understanding of what the density wave theory actually says. Now it is observable and detectable (theoretically)No, the density waves in a galaxy are caused by gravity. Hence, the gravitational effects of neighbouring galaxies can disrupt the density waves of a nearby galaxy.
It's like when a street magician is performing on the sidewalk. A crowd of, say, fifty people start to gather to watch him. Does that mean that for the length of the performance those fifty people don't move a muscle? No. (Unless the magician is really good.) During the performance some people lose interest and walk away. But other people, who initially weren't watching, are attracted by the crowd and join in. So there are always people entering and leaving the crowd, but the crowd itself stays where it is.
Density waves in galaxies are a similar idea. Because there are more stars inside the density wave than outside, stars outside the density wave will tend to be attracted to the density wave; however, the stars are also orbiting the galactic center, and thus possess an angular motion that tends to sweep them out of the density wave. But ultimately that "density wave" is just a gravitational collection of stars, and it can be easily disrupted by any other anomalous gravitational forces.
yeah... about that, just disregard that part. It was based on misinformation.Please elaborate; I'm not sure what you mean. When you say "maps of the local arm" what are the furthest stars you are referring to? You may be not be understanding the length scales correctly.
Thank you for explaining that. I was under a completely different impression of what density waves were. I thought the theory said that all matter in any given galaxy is evenly distributed. However, there are undetectable "density waves" that intensify the visibility of the objects in the density wave. This, of course would reduce the credibility of the density wave theory down to the level of credibility of other theories such as aether, phlogiston, and God. That is to say if a person makes an observation that they cannot explain then they simply attribute the cause to something they cannot detect. That is not science as it is not observable or testable. However, I think you have given me a much clearer understanding of what the density wave theory actually says. Now it is observable and detectable (theoretically)
Your street magicians example was a very good one for explaining the position to me. but in my opinion the pedestrians have an ability that the planets do not. That is, they are self propelled.
However, now I have a new batch of questions
1) Does the density wave theory predict that objects slow down as they cross the center of the wave? If so, what force prevents them from falling out of orbit?
2) Does the density wave theory predict that objects speed up as they exit the wave? If so what force accelerates them?
3) it appears to me that the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other. If the gravity that orbiting bodies exert on each other is negligible (the gravity of the moon slowing down the spin of the earth by 1.7 milliseconds per century due to tidal friction, for example) then we would have a rather elegant answer for the cause of the spiral shape. That is, everything is traveling at the speed it is in order to maintain orbit relative 99.999% of the time to the thing it is orbiting. If the density wave theory postulates that the gravity of orbiting bodies affect each other more than .001% to create a density wave, what prevents them from pulling each other out of orbit? especially if they are capable of pulling the planets of neighboring solar systems out of orbit.
**edit** wait a minute, if most orbits are elliptical and the spiral shape simply denotes the apogee for all given radii, that might explain it, I will have to think about that though since if that is the case then I can't picture why gravity would have anything to do with it.
It happens that I need some information about the Gap Theory shortly. And Faith.Man said he is a Gap theory advocator. So, I thought may be he can teach me something about it. But he replied that I really don't want to learn.
My interpretation is that he does not know much about the Gap theory. And I replied that if he is for the theory, but is afraid of facing questions about the theory, then he is simply hiding behind the comfortable cocoon. I was not criticizing anything about his stand on creationism.
One thing he said, and I am very curious about is that he thought the formless and void status of the "earth" was not caused by Satan. I simply don't understand it. If not, then why was the earth like that?
Can you say something about it? (I do understand the time, and the fossils stuff of the theory).
Well, gravity keeps them in elliptical orbits, and gravity causes the individual elliptical orbits to correlate with each other.
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?