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.
God set up the universe to be one big game of pool, did He?When does finding out the truth rule out Jesus? God's creative process can use a an early collision of the earth with another body if that's what God wants it to do.
Been there done that. I can say with confidence you don't know what you are talking about and are espousing opinion.I am not here to do your research....it is freely available at the click of a mouse....NPS is a great place to start.
What gets conserved needs to be known. You can't invent a space rock smash up, and say..'gee, it would make something spin if it actually happened'!And here I thought it was conservation of angular momentum.
That depends if one tosses out creation, and invents a planet careening aimlessly thru space and invokes a fluke collision with heaven knows what as the cause of God's earth starting to spin..and call that truth!!!When does finding out the truth rule out Jesus? God's creative process can use a an early collision of the earth with another body if that's what God wants it to do.
That depends if one tosses out creation, and invents a planet careening aimlessly thru space and invokes a fluke collision with heaven knows what as the cause of God's earth starting to spin..and call that truth!!!
What gets conserved needs to be known. You can't invent a space rock smash up, and say..'gee, it would make something spin if it actually happened'!
If there wasn't a huge spaghetti monster that burped out earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?If there wasn't an impact on the earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?
'Best' as long as it is cultishly narrow minded criteria that are used to formulate wild guesses falesly called science!Scientists don't do that. They look at all the available evidence and select the best hypothesis that fits this evidence.
You are waiting for....what..to present it??As above, there is other evidence to support the giant impact hypothesis other than the earth spinning.
If there wasn't a huge spaghetti monster that burped out earth, that started it spinning, how do you explain the earth's spin and the moons orbit having similar orientations; why was the moon once molten; and why are the isotope ratios of earth and moon rocks so similar?
You could pick any number of what if questions. The real question is can you prove it!? The moon's interior is not known, so what makes you think the moon was 'molten'? As for ratios of created isotopes the moon and earth have the same creator...so why not??
'Best' as long as it is cultishly narrow minded criteria that are used to formulate wild guesses falesly called science!
You are waiting for....what..to present it??
No need. Science has a need to prove what it claims, because it is supposed to be more than belief.Can you prove that there is a creator?
Great, so prove a smash up started the earth revolving.Very little can actually be proved. Science goes much further towards proving things than relgion does.
False. It has to omit Jesus the creator, avoid spirits or spiritual, be based on today's physics or laws and realities of this present state, and etc. Only then is it considered a fit!The criteria for best hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis that fits the data,
Nonsense. Falsify the same state past science uses?and makes falsifiable, and useful, predictions.
I don't care, but whatever it is it better work. You need to solidly support your claims and show how. Let's see you do that for a smash up that started the earth spinning?What is wrong with those criteria, and what criteria do you think should be used to choose hypotheses?
To the informed mind, that describes science best.Your descriptions describe religion and creationism far, far, better than the desrcribe science. Wild guesses, narrow minded criteria. The same for your 'can you prove?' Religion is far weaker than science at 'proving' anything.
No need. Science has a need to prove what it claims, because it is supposed to be more than belief.
Great, so prove a smash up started the earth revolving.
False. It has to omit Jesus the creator, avoid spirits or spiritual, be based on today's physics or laws and realities of this present state, and etc. Only then is it considered a fit!
Nonsense. Falsify the same state past science uses?
I don't care, but whatever it is it better work. You need to solidly support your claims and show how. Let's see you do that for a smash up that started the earth spinning?
To the informed mind, that describes science best.
How do they "know" this, having not gone to the sun and inspecting the fusion process themselves?
I don't know. My theory is that the "planets" are merely how our physical eyes interpret the existence of other planes of existence.
Jesus did that...even asking shows that it is a waste of time talking about it with you. The issue here is science. Science claims a big thingie smashed earth...right? Get to it man and prove it.Special pleading I see. Just saying that you don't need to prove a creator does not excuse you from having to do so. It's a quite telling thing that you try to wriggle out of this one.
The issue is the science claims and what basis there is for them. Why so scared? Obviously you have NONE.'Prove it' is the refuge of the scoundrel in debates. Particularly since you say you have no need to prove a creator, even though your whole world view and argument is based on it.
No you have not.I've already given you evidence. Can you argue against this evidence?
Jesus did that...even asking shows that it is a waste of time talking about it with you. The issue here is science. Science claims a big thingie smashed earth...right? Get to it man and prove it.
The issue is the science claims and what basis there is for them. Why so scared? Obviously you have NONE.
Your evidence for the space thingie that smashed earth..is..??If the issue is science, then it's based on evidence and hypotheses, not 'proving it'. I've given a hypothesis and the evidence that supports that hypothesis.
Nonsense. Looking at a planet turn does not mean a smash up. A smash up is just a way to try to explain it! Fable.I've given you evidence. Similarity of spins/orbits,
Let's see evidence the whole moon was molten? Don't talk just post it.evidence of molten past,
That doesn't help you one bit. Only inside your little belief based dreamscape.and similarity of isotopes.
Absurd. The only response we need from science rather than making godless stuff up is this...'I do not know'!!!!The only response you have is 'Goddidit'.
That's under the assumption that the sun is a "star" and is undergoing nuclear fusion.You don't need to. It's called physics. It's perfectly possible to calculate the requirements for fusion and a 30 mile wide ball of gas doesn't cut it. Calculations allow you to accurately predict physical phenomena without having to travel to each and every one.
The absolutely smallest that a star can be and still achieve nuclear fusion is about 75000 miles diamter (8.7% of the diameter of the sun)
http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-star-size-red-dwarf.html?cmpid=514630
As a Christian, surely you believe that people are spirits (their true selves), clothed in physical bodies. Why do men and women appear in specific places at specific times? Why isn't a man pyramid shaped?I've read that sentence twice. Still no idea what it means.
So why do these parts of other planes of existence only appear in very specific parts of the sky? Why can be predict wtih incredible accuracy where these will be found and their movements according to Keplar's laws? Why when we look at them through a telescope do they have a predictable appearance - why doesn't Mars sometimes look green or rectangle shaped?
Rather than 'theory' I think you mean 'unevidenced idea'.
Your evidence for the space thingie that smashed earth..is..??
Nonsense. Looking at a planet turn does not mean a smash up. A smash up is just a way to try to explain it! Fable.
Let's see evidence the whole moon was molten? Don't talk just post it.
That doesn't help you one bit. Only inside your little belief based dreamscape.
Absurd. The only response we need from science rather than making godless stuff up is this...'I do not know'!!!!
You be beat already. Nice try.
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?