Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!
Creation on the Web ^ | August 26, 2008 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.1 As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby.2

As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was:

(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; bloodbath; creation; evolution; flamefestival; intelligentdesign; notanewstopic; notasciencetopic; russellhumphreys; scientism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-357 next last
To: GourmetDan
GR would be fundamentally violated if there were any relativistic physically significant difference between geocentrism and geokineticism.

Well, I'll have to read up more on that. Intriguing, to say the least.

251 posted on 08/27/2008 9:08:15 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Wow. The cognitive dissonance necessary!!!

Ok, what is the actual mass of the Sun? The actual mass of the Earth? The actual mass of the Moon?

Please show your work whereby your derive that gravity MUST drag the Sun around the Earth (if indeed you have settled upon Gravity as the mechanism).

And no, Geocentricism is not a threat to my “worldview”. I would have to think it had even a modicum of credibility in order to consider it a threat. I find it very amusing, like someone standing out in the rain insisting it isn't raining and they are not getting wet.

252 posted on 08/27/2008 9:14:00 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Ok, what is the actual mass of the Sun? The actual mass of the Earth? The actual mass of the Moon?"

They aren't known. They are assumed based on the formulas and the theory.

Did you put Saturn in a big bathtub to make sure it really is lighter than water and that it really does float?

253 posted on 08/27/2008 9:55:39 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And no, Geocentricism is not a threat to my “worldview”."

Apparently we can assume that you would put as much effort into ridiculing someone who believed in the Easter Bunny then.

254 posted on 08/27/2008 10:15:04 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
"I believe the Bible is inspired, and inerrant in it's original manuscripts, and what we hold today is 99.9% the same as what was written."

You might reconsider that position. It gives 'early' copies of manuscripts more weight when they may not be accurate, just early. The NIV particularly suffers from this position.

You should investigate the work of Ivan Panin, who found numerical patterns in the Received Hebrew and Westcott and Hort texts that are not in other textual collections. The guy was an agnostic, studying the Gospel of John in the original Greek when he had his revelation. Became a Christian as a result. Again, Google works well.

It is the presence of the numeric pattern that indicates that you have the inspired version, not whether the text you are using is the 'earliest' known.

What is 'original' is unknowable. Basically an unfalsifiable position. No different than when the evos do it.

255 posted on 08/27/2008 10:45:26 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Only if they insisted that the Easter Bunny was a Scientifically valid hypothesis and superior to the “chicken egg colored by children” theory would I ridicule them.

And it isn't much effort. I had fun doing some Newtonian calculations and showing just how off base you are with your ‘gravity from the moon is twice as strong as gravity from the sun nonsense’ (the gravity from the Sun is one hundred seventy times as strong as that from the Moon).

When something is fun you find it to not really be much of an effort. ;)

Now why is Gravity, Newtonian Physics, the heliocentricity of our planetary system, Biology and Geology such a threat to YOUR worldview? What particular Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricity and why do you feel so threatened by Newtonian Physics?

256 posted on 08/27/2008 11:06:36 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Gospel of John in the original Greek

Which manuscript did he use? The TR? The MT? Greek Orthodox?

257 posted on 08/27/2008 11:23:40 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"And it isn't much effort. I had fun doing some Newtonian calculations and showing just how off base you are with your ‘gravity from the moon is twice as strong as gravity from the sun nonsense’ (the gravity from the Sun is one hundred seventy times as strong as that from the Moon)."

Hmmm. Calculated difference based on assumptions, 170 times. Observed effect, -2 times. But nobody sees a problem.

"Now why is Gravity, Newtonian Physics, the heliocentricity of our planetary system, Biology and Geology such a threat to YOUR worldview? What particular Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricity and why do you feel so threatened by Newtonian Physics?"

Gravity is largely unknown. When you start invoking 'dark matter' to get your model to work, it's busted whether you admit it or not. Newtonian physics isn't a problem, it's the underlying mass assumptions that nobody mentions. Heliocentricity is a philosophical belief. Geocentrism is equivalent as Einstein et al said. Biology is fine. Believing that the existence of complex, coded information w/ fault-tolerance and error-correction systems supports evolution is for the credulous and Geology is heavily interpreted and even then it has to invoke processes not observed (like 'overthrusting') to explain anomalies away.

It's largely a matter of understanding where the problems of modern science are and how they are ignored or credulously accepting what 'science' tells you.

258 posted on 08/27/2008 11:23:47 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; MrB
“Did you put Saturn in a big bathtub to make sure it really is lighter than water and that it really does float?” GDan

Are you really this ignorant of Science or are you just pretending as Mr.B postulated?

Perhaps you are unaware of Astronomical spectroscopy?

Spectroscopy can determine the atomic composition of a substance that absorbs and emits light. Based upon this we know the composition of Saturn to be ~96% Hydrogen (H2), 3% Helium,~0.4% Methane, ~0.01% Ammonia, ~0.01% Hydrogen deuteride. This mixture is indeed lighter than water.

If you have problems with Spectroscopy perhaps you should take it up with Newton along with your ‘corrections’ of his mistaken notions about gravity.

259 posted on 08/27/2008 11:24:06 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

I don’t know that he said which one he was using at that time.

Are you reading or just reacting?


260 posted on 08/27/2008 11:25:24 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Spectroscopy can determine the atomic composition of a substance that absorbs and emits light. Based upon this we know the composition of Saturn to be ~96% Hydrogen (H2), 3% Helium,~0.4% Methane, ~0.01% Ammonia, ~0.01% Hydrogen deuteride. This mixture is indeed lighter than water."

How do you know that the entire planet has this composition?

261 posted on 08/27/2008 11:26:29 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Only if they insisted that the Easter Bunny was a Scientifically valid hypothesis and superior to the “chicken egg colored by children” theory would I ridicule them."

There's as much scientific evidence for the Easter Bunny as there is for abiogenesis.

Is abiogenesis 'scientifically invalid'?

262 posted on 08/27/2008 11:29:55 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The chemical composition of Saturn's atmosphere
Authors:
Encrenaz, Thérse
Publication:
In: Proceedings of the International Conference “Titan - from discovery to encounter”, 13-17 April 2004, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Ed.: Karen Fletcher. ESA SP-1278, Noordwijk, Netherlands: ESA Publications Division, ISBN 92-9092-997-9, 2004, p. 331 - 341
Publication Date:
00/2004
Origin:
ARI
Keywords:
Saturn, Atmosphere, Chemical Composition
Abstract Copyright:
ESA
Comment:
ISBN: 92-9092-997-9
Bibliographic Code:
2004ESASP1278..331E

Abstract
The atmosphere of Saturn, like that of the other giant planets, is dominated by hydrogen, helium and minor species in reduced form. Its chemical composition has been studied by remote sensing spectroscopy, especially in the infrared range, from the ground and aboard the Voyager spacecraft. The measurement of abundance ratios in Saturn's troposphere shows an enrichment in C/H and D/H, in agreement with the nucleation formation model of the giant planets. As in the case of the other giant planets, Saturn's stratosphere exhibits an active methane photochemistry and an external oxygen source. The Cassini mission is expected to provide more accurate measurements of some abundance ratios, as well as a spatial and temporal monitoring of the minor atmospheric species. In the future, a space mission including one or more descent probes would be needed, to obtain a complete and precise measurement of the enrichment factor of heavy gases in Saturn, and thus to better understand the planet's formation scenario.

263 posted on 08/27/2008 11:34:56 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Scientific evidence for the Easter Bunny? You obviously don't know what Scientific evidence entails.

The capability of RNA to autocatalize is Scientific evidence in support of the hypothetical involvement of RNA in abiogenesis.

The ability of the early earth atmosphere to spontaneously form biological molecules is another piece of evidence is support of they hypothesis of abiogenesis.

What “Scientific evidence” do you have to support the ‘Easter Bunny’ hypothesis over the theory of “chicken eggs colored by children”?

264 posted on 08/27/2008 11:38:34 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Are you reading or just reacting?

I am strating to not take you seriously because of the veiled insults you toss my way, and we hold most of the same beliefs.

I don’t know that he said which one he was using at that time.

He often used the Wescott & Hort text, published in 1881, which differs from the Textus Receptus, the work of Erasmus first published in 1516, which is the basis for the KJV. They both used a variety of base manuscripts and criticism methods. The biggest criticism of Panin is that he used a variety of manuscripts to find the numerical patterns he reported. Nevertheless, the finding of patterns does not prove inerrant copying of the Inspired originals, and I have seen no scriptural reason to suppose that it would. If anything, I would think this would lead more to deception than confirmation.

Consider the simliarities of Linclon and Kennedy. So what.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincolnjfk.htm

265 posted on 08/27/2008 11:39:23 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

You are starting to catch on.


266 posted on 08/27/2008 11:43:06 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"The chemical composition of Saturn's atmosphere"

So how do you know the entire planet has this composition?

267 posted on 08/27/2008 11:54:18 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
"I am starting to not take you seriously because of the veiled insults you toss my way, and we hold most of the same beliefs."

Kinda thin-skinned aren't you? No 'veiled insults' are coming your way. I'm even correcting your typos for you.

"He often used the Wescott & Hort text, published in 1881, which differs from the Textus Receptus, the work of Erasmus first published in 1516, which is the basis for the KJV. They both used a variety of base manuscripts and criticism methods. The biggest criticism of Panin is that he used a variety of manuscripts to find the numerical patterns he reported."

So what's the problem with using manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus? A priori assumption there?

"Nevertheless, the finding of patterns does not prove inerrant copying of the Inspired originals, and I have seen no scriptural reason to suppose that it would. If anything, I would think this would lead more to deception than confirmation."

You're still stuck on the non-existent originals theme. It's the version of the book that fits with all of the other books that carry the pattern that is inspired.

268 posted on 08/27/2008 12:01:55 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Scientific evidence for the Easter Bunny? You obviously don't know what Scientific evidence entails."

Scientists working on abiogenesis is no different than kids coloring eggs as evidence for the Easter Bunny. Both are conspicuously absent from observation.

"The capability of RNA to autocatalize is Scientific evidence in support of the hypothetical involvement of RNA in abiogenesis."

Only to the credulous, my friend. Only to the credulous. It's just a blue easter egg. There's still no Easter Bunny.

"The ability of the early earth atmosphere to spontaneously form biological molecules is another piece of evidence is support of they hypothesis of abiogenesis."

I don't think anyone still assumes that the early atmosphere was reducing. Much less solve the right-handed vs left-handed problem, the non-existent amino acid trap, etc, etc, etc. That easter egg doesn't even exist anymore. But hey, that's science for you.

"What “Scientific evidence” do you have to support the ‘Easter Bunny’ hypothesis over the theory of “chicken eggs colored by children”?"

The fact that children can color eggs just like the Easter Bunny did is proof that there surely was (and most likely still is) an Easter Bunny.

269 posted on 08/27/2008 12:09:32 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"You are starting to catch on."

Is that what got your knickers in a twist? Perceived insults?

My, my.

270 posted on 08/27/2008 12:25:12 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Kinda thin-skinned aren't you?

Obviously

So what's the problem with using manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus? A priori assumption there?

Not at all. I was simply springboarding from your earlier statement
You might reconsider that position. It gives 'early' copies of manuscripts more weight when they may not be accurate, just early. The NIV particularly suffers from this position.
The W&S uses the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, which are older than the manuscripts used in the TR. The W&S is a primary basis of the Nestle-Aland, which draws from the W&S, and is the basis for the NIV. Just odd that your comments on numerology found by Panin, which was based on "older"manuscripts, in support of your original statement about the age of manuscripts and there accuracy.

I'm even correcting your typos for you.

Words fail to express my gratitude.

271 posted on 08/27/2008 12:29:09 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
"The W&S uses the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus, which are older than the manuscripts used in the TR. The W&S is a primary basis of the Nestle-Aland, which draws from the W&S, and is the basis for the NIV. Just odd that your comments on numerology found by Panin, which was based on "older"manuscripts, in support of your original statement about the age of manuscripts and there [sic] accuracy."

Again, it's not the age of the manuscript and there is no reliance on non-existent 'originals'. It's also not numerology, although many people make that error. It is the presence of the pattern in the complete set that controls.

Extending this idea, should a different version of a manuscript turn up that extends the pattern, then that version should be considered the inspired version of that book. No need to appeal to non-existent 'originals' or to use age as the determining factor.

272 posted on 08/27/2008 1:14:41 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan
Young earth creationism ignores science by definition.

I'm not speaking of the question of whether or not there's a God. That question is outside the realm of science. I'm speaking of those who try to understand things such as biological diversity or the age of the Solar system through such myths as the Biblical flood or the account in Genesis.

Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?

Your argument is akin to someone trying to understand the origin of a cake without ever having seen an oven. And when confronted with the idea, rejects it out of hand - because in their experience, ovens don't exist.

However, If God exists then Genesis is no longer a myth, it is a possibility - an answer. You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)

You might say that you accept that there is a god - just not the one that Genesis describes (he purposely created an illusion - not fair!). But how can you place constraints on a creator (how he is allowed to create)? "Can the pot say to the potter - 'why have you made me this way?'".

The Bible states that there is enough evidence in creation that points to the existence of God - and I for one accept this statement. Logic alone dictates that you don't get get the universe we see, life on this planet - as a result of blind luck and chance.

So you say "I reject Genesis". Well, I reject blind luck and chance. But I also assert that there is enough other truth in the Bible to give meaning and purpose to what we see in this world. The problem - what causes those who "know" - to stumble or at least stop - is that faith is required.

And all I can say is if you don't have faith - ask for it.

God Bless

273 posted on 08/27/2008 3:52:47 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
It is the same as the Darwinian ‘revolution’ and long-ages for the earth/universe. The only support for these positions is that large numbers of people believe it.

That and mountains of evidence. Oh, and the evidence for the contrary positions is squat.

(The Keepers Of Odd Knowledge have sure taken over this site!)

274 posted on 08/27/2008 6:12:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GourmetDan; jonno

GourmetDan wins in a landslide - again! He enjoys research and learning, likes to teach, and most importantly backs-up what he is saying w/ details. He has responded to nearly every inquiry allmendream has posed with numerous links, sources, quotes and a rich and wide variety of information. I’ll be busy reading and absorbing from his links for quite awhile.

Freedom of speech is truly one of the greatest rights to be shared. Thank God for the internet and esp. FR for widening the use of this basic right.

Allmendream where are your links, sources or even just some of the assumptions present in astronomical spectroscopy?

How accurate is spectrospcopy detection of light emission and absorbtion at astronomically greater and greater distances?

Would the gases listed only comprise Saturn’s atmosphere? Not the core?

Or do we know w/o any reservations that Saturn is completely gaseous (noting eerily similarity to the ‘well-reasoned expert’ evos posting here)!?

True knowledge is conveyed with sound reasoning, logic, and details not ‘high-falutin brow-beatin’ amidst thick layers of condescension using popular opinions. The scientific method works best when all reasonable trains of thought are open for consideration. You can argue against mountains of ‘evidence’ but all the assumptions must be unearthed first.

Is the Earth truly revolving around 1 thousand mph and orbiting nearly 70k mph? With no noticeable effects? Neither here on solid ground, nor while orbiting? The astronauts described orbit it as a peaceful floating sensation - things that make you go hmmm...

A similar thread occurred over a year ago and GourmetDan more than handled the evos then too. See link below...

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?more=185420106

Course none of this matters if you can so easily dismiss God (as evos so often do) - where Jonno so eloquently pointed out the obvious in post 273.


275 posted on 08/27/2008 7:25:23 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels

oops - here’s the link w/ GourmetDan’s arguments from a similar thread...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800275/posts


276 posted on 08/27/2008 7:33:26 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

“EVERY time in the OT, when a number is used in conjunction with the word day, it refers to a 24 hour period. On top of that, God described “Evening and morning” as being a day. Taken together, it is obvious that the intention is a 24 hour day”

Indicating an order by specifying first, second etc. in no way forces the meaning to be litteral, likewise for the use of morning and evening etc. When we talk of the dawn of the Roman Empire, we are not talking of a literal morning on one specific day. Interpreting Genesis’s use of day to indicate a stage of unknown length in the creation of the earth is perfectly valid.

“It was NEVER suggested to mean anything different, until people started trying to compromise scripture with the false assumptions of evolution.”

The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with explaining the process of the earth’s creation. Astrophysics does that, and it does so mathematically with the hydrostatic equation which is derived from Newtonian physics and validated in several contexts.

“If one reads the sequence recorded in Genesis 1, the scripture has the sequence of events completely opposite the evolution sequence. Scripture has Earth before sun & stars, water before land, light before the sun, plants before the sun, birds before land animals.”

You did not read carefully what I said, it maps well to what an OBSERVER on the surface of the earth would see (in fast forward). The earth, as a proto-planet, would exist in it’s orbit around the proto-sun long before the sun actually reached the point of igniting. Before that point it would also start to glow a dull red from the heat generated as it collapsed (blackbody radiation), and that red light would be diffused through the solar nebula the the whole system would be clouded in. An observer on the earth at this point would see some light, but probably not be able to spot a specific source of light. Later when the sun ignited the solar winds it generated began to push the solar nebula back, first making the sun and moon visible, and later clearing things up enough that the stars would become visible.

I don’t have time to go through the whole mapping, but I do recall the sudden realization in my astrophysics course in university that what the professor was describing fit so well with the Biblical account if you assume that Moses is recounting personal observations from the surface of the earth. The professor was not trying to make that point either, as far as I knew he was a non-religious as any other prof. I believe that God showed Moses what happened and Moses recorded his observations to the best of his ability given the language of the day didn’t give him the words to be as clear and specific as a scientist today could be.


277 posted on 08/27/2008 8:35:30 PM PDT by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Indicating an order by specifying first, second etc. in no way forces the meaning to be litteral, likewise for the use of morning and evening etc. When we talk of the dawn of the Roman Empire, we are not talking of a literal morning on one specific day. Interpreting Genesis’s use of day to indicate a stage of unknown length in the creation of the earth is perfectly valid.

Taken in the context they could only mean literal days. Everytime in the OT when the word day is used in conjunction with a number it means a 24 hour period. To refer to "And the evening and the morning were the first day." is a completely different context than "dawn of the Roman Empire". No question it was a single light/dark cycle day. The very use of "evening and morning", joined by a conjunction, neccesitates it. In order to suggest your point of view, one has to explain why the days were numbered, and why it is called evening and morning. More importantly, in Exodus 20:8-11, the scripture reads:

"8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Again, 7 literal days are referred to as the pattern for our 7 day week. If it were indeterminent periods of time, why were the called "days"?

You did not read carefully what I said, it maps well to what an OBSERVER on the surface of the earth would see (in fast forward). The earth, as a proto-planet, would exist in it’s orbit around the proto-sun long before the sun actually reached the point of igniting. Before that point it would also start to glow a dull red from the heat generated as it collapsed (blackbody radiation), and that red light would be diffused through the solar nebula the the whole system would be clouded in. An observer on the earth at this point would see some light, but probably not be able to spot a specific source of light. Later when the sun ignited the solar winds it generated began to push the solar nebula back, first making the sun and moon visible, and later clearing things up enough that the stars would become visible.

OK. I will concede the point that you were referring to only astronomical events, and not to those on Earth. However, the rest of the chronology does not coincide, e.g. water before dry land, plants before Sun, , earth before stars, etc.

278 posted on 08/27/2008 10:22:54 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Wow. Without citing a mechanism whereby the Sun would be dragged around a motionless earth, confusing the gravity upon the earth with the gravity upon the tides, disagreeing with Newtonian physics, and failure to cite a single Biblical passage in support of Geocentricism you think GDan “won”.

How about those details? Where are the links, sources or quotes? Rather than a rich and wide variety of information GDan has failed to cite a mechanism or support his contention with a Biblical citation.

279 posted on 08/27/2008 11:03:34 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

ping for more time..


280 posted on 08/27/2008 11:06:19 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Your nonsense is one of the main reasons I haven’t been posting much on FR. I will not engage in debate with your ridiculus assertations because that would grant them far more credibility than they deserve.

Sometimes it is more important to lose one’s decorum in order to say exactly what needs to be said and you are providing perfect example.

You, GourmetDan, need to be elevated for the whole world to see. You need to be held up as a classic example of a crank. Your thoughts are worthless, your postings are anti-intellectual trash even though you have every right to say them.

The simple fact that Free Republic not only tolerates you but defends and encourages you in your self-centered quest as a freak messiah of medival, anti-rationality to those who want to believe in every nut-job, anti-science and anti-establishment crackpot idea shows how this website has degenerated over the last couple of years.

It was a good place to get interesting information and to learn something new. But your postings, amongst others, have contaminated legitimate information here with the Weekly World News version of science and makes everything here seem dubious. It’s at the point where this is a dangerous place to get any information because garbage like yours dominates these threads. And it is a danger to the reputation of any rational person who choses to engage your folly.

I make no apologies for calling you what you are [a crank] and calling you out on your hair-brained ideas worth of a cave man [apologies to any cave men reading this].

Thank you, GourmetDan, for being a perfect example of the antithesis of rationality. Please continue your postings so there will be more and more examples of what this site has become and the depths a crank will go.


281 posted on 08/28/2008 6:57:18 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: doc30
I believe you wanted to quote this:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!

282 posted on 08/28/2008 7:02:17 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: doc30
"Your nonsense is one of the main reasons I haven’t been posting much on FR. I will not engage in debate with your ridiculus assertations because that would grant them far more credibility than they deserve."

Hey great!

Sometimes unintended consequences can be positive!

283 posted on 08/28/2008 7:11:03 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; BrandtMichaels
"Wow. Without citing a mechanism whereby the Sun would be dragged around a motionless earth, confusing the gravity upon the earth with the gravity upon the tides, disagreeing with Newtonian physics, and failure to cite a single Biblical passage in support of Geocentricism you think GDan “won”. How about those details? Where are the links, sources or quotes? Rather than a rich and wide variety of information GDan has failed to cite a mechanism or support his contention with a Biblical citation."

Yeah, everyone should wait until you are satisfied (which will never happen) before they are allowed to express their opinion.

Bad boy Brandt! Your opinion isn't valid until allmendream says it is.

284 posted on 08/28/2008 7:15:49 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

It was hardly just his opinion. He said you had answered my every inquiry while that is simply not the case, you have studiously avoided answering my two main questions repeatedly.

What force could drag the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?

What Biblical support can you find for Geocentricism?


285 posted on 08/28/2008 7:22:33 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"It was hardly just his opinion."

If it wasn't his opinion, what was it? A fact?

"He said you had answered my every inquiry while that is simply not the case, you have studiously avoided answering my two main questions repeatedly."

Apparently he thought I did answer your inquiries adequately. It's clear that you'll continue to make your claim no matter what explanation or information I give you. That's a classic evo tactic in 'discussions'.

I suppose what is surprising is that you really believe that no one can see through it. Apparently there's at least one.

286 posted on 08/28/2008 7:32:55 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

What explanation or information have you ‘given me’ on either of my two lines of inquiry?

What Biblical passage supports Geocentricism?

What force could drag the Sun around the Moon?

Why are you so afraid to answer these simple questions if you are so sure of the superiority of your Geocentric model?


287 posted on 08/28/2008 7:44:30 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Why so you find it necessary to insult the Weekly World News?


288 posted on 08/28/2008 7:48:01 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"What explanation or information have you ‘given me’ on either of my two lines of inquiry?"

Go back through the thread and read what I've already posted.

Your answers are there if you can understand them.

289 posted on 08/28/2008 7:48:12 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Why DO you find it necessary ...

Sheesh.

290 posted on 08/28/2008 7:56:03 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Ok then, you seem to go from electromagnetism, to gravity, to tides, back to gravity. No answer as to how the force would move the massive Sun while leaving the tiny Earth motionless in violation of Force = mass *acceleration.

Also you have not cited a single Biblical passage in support of Geocentricism.

Claiming I don't understand what you are obviously not saying while claiming you are seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts.

One word answer: What force drags the Sun around the Earth? (hint, there is only the Strong, the Electromagnetic, and Gravity; pick one).

Citation answer: What biblical passage do you feel supports Geocentricity?

Inability to type one word and one citation speaks volumes about you. One hides only that which they cannot defend.

291 posted on 08/28/2008 7:56:18 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Your nonsense is one of the main reasons I haven’t been posting much on FR. I will not engage in debate with your ridiculus assertations because that would grant them far more credibility than they deserve.

Sometimes it is more important to lose one’s decorum in order to say exactly what needs to be said and you are providing perfect example.

You, GourmetDan, need to be elevated for the whole world to see. You need to be held up as a classic example of a crank. Your thoughts are worthless, your postings are anti-intellectual trash even though you have every right to say them.

The simple fact that Free Republic not only tolerates you but defends and encourages you in your self-centered quest as a freak messiah of medival, anti-rationality to those who want to believe in every nut-job, anti-science and anti-establishment crackpot idea shows how this website has degenerated over the last couple of years.

It was a good place to get interesting information and to learn something new. But your postings, amongst others, have contaminated legitimate information here with the Weekly World News version of science and makes everything here seem dubious. It’s at the point where this is a dangerous place to get any information because garbage like yours dominates these threads. And it is a danger to the reputation of any rational person who choses to engage your folly.

I make no apologies for calling you what you are [a crank] and calling you out on your hair-brained ideas worth of a cave man [apologies to any cave men reading this].

Thank you, GourmetDan, for being a perfect example of the antithesis of rationality. Please continue your postings so there will be more and more examples of what this site has become and the depths a crank will go.

Bump.

292 posted on 08/28/2008 9:30:22 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Ok then, you seem to go from electromagnetism, to gravity, to tides, back to gravity. No answer as to how the force would move the massive Sun while leaving the tiny Earth motionless in violation of Force = mass *acceleration."

Just answering questions. There's no getting around the fact that geocentrism is equivalent to geokineticism under GR per Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis. To claim that there is some physically significant difference is to reject GR because GR says there is none. If it doesn't make sense it's because you don't understand.

"Claiming I don't understand what you are obviously not saying while claiming you are seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts."

Claiming that I have not answered your questions seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts.

293 posted on 08/28/2008 9:42:57 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

That was rude.

(Now he won’t explain how a sun made up of water functions.)


294 posted on 08/28/2008 9:50:56 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?

Not at all. The existence of ovens is testable and falsifiable.

Your argument is akin to someone trying to understand the origin of a cake without ever having seen an oven. And when confronted with the idea, rejects it out of hand - because in their experience, ovens don't exist.

Since the existence of ovens (as opposed to God) is testable and falsifiable, such a conclusion would not be reached.

However, If God exists then Genesis is no longer a myth, it is a possibility - an answer. You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)

Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology. See:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

If you're taking it on faith, it's not science.

You might say that you accept that there is a god - just not the one that Genesis describes (he purposely created an illusion - not fair!). But how can you place constraints on a creator (how he is allowed to create)? "Can the pot say to the potter - 'why have you made me this way?'".

What illusion? In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be. If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.

The Bible states that there is enough evidence in creation that points to the existence of God - and I for one accept this statement. Logic alone dictates that you don't get get the universe we see, life on this planet - as a result of blind luck and chance.

Logic dictates no such thing. Here's a list of logical fallacies commonly associated with those who reject evolution:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

You seem to be employing #7: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.

So you say "I reject Genesis". Well, I reject blind luck and chance. But I also assert that there is enough other truth in the Bible to give meaning and purpose to what we see in this world. The problem - what causes those who "know" - to stumble or at least stop - is that faith is required.

I think your argument falls completely apart at this point. You've been speaking about the definition of science, and you're now asserting that faith is required. Faith is the antithesis of science.

And all I can say is if you don't have faith - ask for it.

Why? The universe is being investigated by those who use the scientific method, and it works. Faith (for these purposes) doesn't.

God Bless

Thank you.

295 posted on 08/28/2008 9:54:57 AM PDT by rosenfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Why not just answer “The Firmament”, and be done with it? You know, The Firmament, that shell of matter of near infinite density into which the Sun, Moon, and stars are embedded. The one that rotates around the Earth once every day. The Firmament, aka Heaven. That is the correct answer per the geocentric view, no?


296 posted on 08/28/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades (This line intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Please reference the specific posts wherein you answered my rather simple questions.

“I've already answered” is a common tactic of those who have not answered and are embarrassed to.

What force could drag the Sun around the Earth? Talking about coordinate systems and general relativity and the tides doesn't answer this question, it avoids it.

What in the Bible supports Geocentricism?

297 posted on 08/28/2008 10:21:32 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan
Whoops...the first part of post #295 should read:

Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?

Not at all. The existence of God is neither testable nor falsifiable.

298 posted on 08/28/2008 10:26:15 AM PDT by rosenfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
While sitting back and watching The Learned Minds Pustulate and Fulminate I followed the links in the article.
Not just the sun but everything in the cosmos came from a sphere of water one light year in radius (diameter?) according to Dr. Humphreys. If you can past that the sun functioning is easy.
299 posted on 08/28/2008 12:50:05 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan
Thanks.

At the risk of being argumentative, I'll restate: You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)

Your response (and link) Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology is simply a straw man and is in truth a non-sequitur.

You responded later: What illusion?
This was perhaps not your claim, but the point has been made on this thread that if one were to accept the idea of a young earth, one would have to conclude that God was tricking us because starlight would have to have been artificially made.

In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be.
Does this include the claim that there is no creator?

If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
Agreed

Again I'll restate: You (apparently) reject Genesis. Well, I reject blind luck and chance. And again I'll lay claim to the logic of my position, simply because of the truly astronomical odds required that blind luck and chance brought us to this place and time.

Are you aware of an occasion or event where something (matter) came from nothing? If not, your position (imho) is illogical at best and unscientific at worst.

Grace.

300 posted on 08/28/2008 1:30:57 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-357 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson