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 ...
First off you left out the point about the elements the Sun is made up of. Anything other than hydrogen and helium make the Sun MORE massive. So if your proposing that the Sun is not made up of hydrogen and helium that only makes the Sun heavier not lighter. The Sun would have to be made of “magic” to be lighter than hydrogen and helium.
The force necessary for nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium is known. A Sun the size of the moon would not be capable of nuclear fusion.
A Sun the size of the moon would not be measure to be about 8 light minutes distance and appear to be the size of the moon. A Sun the size of the moon measured to be about 8 light minutes distant would be a mere speck to the human eye.
Once again one must throw out the theories of Physic regarding Gravity and Nuclear Fusion to believe for even a second in Geocentricity.
As opposed to what?
What is a higher level of explanation than a theory?
And "assumption" doesn't mean "automatically wrong" or "wild-ass guess" as is often implied by creationists. There has to be some factual basis for those assumptions, and if they are not supported by subsequent experiments they are discarded.
It is very informative to consider the "assumptions" one is rejecting vs. the "assumptions" one is accepting when one argues for a geocentric universe.
Believe what you want, and call it science.
Why must you assert that Biblical Christianity, a young Earth, and questioning current scientific dogma is unscientific?
Websters define science as
1. the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2a.department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the science of theology)
3a.knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.
A generally accepted explanation of the scientific method would be:
1. Make Observation
2. Form Hypothesis
3. Test Hypothesis
4. Draw Conclusion
So, 1. The cosmos is organized, runs like clockwork, supports life on earth, and is beautiful
2a. Your Theory - The result of an explosion which created space, matter and time, 13.7 billion years ago
2b. My Theory - The result of an omnipotent being 6000 years ago.
3. Test Hypothesis with futher observation, theory, assumption, and faith (ughhh) for we CANNOT go back in time to know for sure
4a. The "scientific" conclusion: All we see is the result of an explosion, stars coallesced, planets formed, went into orbit, acquired moons, etc. Life in all of it's diversity and complexity, arose by spontaneous chance to be able to eat and reproduce, and through uncountable accidents in the encoding of DNA (which was spontaneoulsy generated as well) has led to the complexity of the human body. Life has no meaning, no purpose, no right or wrong, and nothing after death, for we are mere accidents of biological processes, and conscienceness is a chemical illusion.
4b. My conclusion: Jesus made it all in 6 days, just like he said, and He is the meaning, purpose, the Truth, and he controls Life. This Creator, who made DNA and the biological mechanisms to read, utilize, and reproduce it, designed the Earth for habitation, put it in the Cosmos he created, and then put life on it.
Our premise and hypothesis depends on which conclusion we draw, for we will both argue against the evidence that opposes our conclusions.
YE vs. OE is fundamental, not because of the supposed evidence for either, but because evolution requires the magic ingredient of "time", and lots of it, to work.
You are arguing from religious belief, not science.
I will, BTW, as will you. But do you at least understand why I believe the Bible, even if you don't. Do you understand the points above (first 5)? Have you even considered their veracity? Can you so easily surmise my idiocy and you superiority? Do I offend you so much thatyou either discount or refuse to consider the claims of this 'Jesus'? Who do you say he was?
Our other debates are fun, but relatively meaningless in comparison to the nature of Jesus.
Jesus claimed to be God. Therefor, he is either:
1. a Lunatic
2. a Liar
3. Just who he claimed.
What say you?
So you agree with 4a above. We know where we stand, eh?
Jesus claimed to be God.
***Yes, Jesus did claim that. And the science behind the historicity of this event is often attacked by the same people who claim to uphold science on crevo threads. This is a new form of a religion, based upon scientism.
Here’s a thread I opened a while ago in support of the science behind the historicity of Jesus:
The Historicity of Jesus Christ [Open Thread under Religion Moderator’s Guidelines]
History | August 3, 2008 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2070704/posts
Article concerning the composition of the Sun.
Intersting link I found on the usefulness and defenders of theories, whatever their nature: here
Any addition of any theoretical Iron to the Sun serves only to make it MORE massive not less. As I said, the Sun would have to be made out of ‘magic’ to be less dense than hydrogen and helium.
Oh, the mechanism has been provided, if you knew how to understand the model. I even explained your error, but it does no good. Every experiment designed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun has failed.
Hence my point about science constantly changing, neccesitating a change in theory to keep up with constantly changing data. Thus, I am slow to place my confidence, and argue for acceptance of, theory that will change tomorrow with a better satelite, instrument or computer. We are explorers, and curious by nature, and demand explanation for what we see. Our premise about origins, however, determines how we will hypothesize explainations of our observations. As Einstein once said, "It is theory that determines what can be observed."
The sun, stars and other galactic objects emitting electromagnetic radiation are probably not powered by gravity-induced fusion, but are a type of electric arc. That's why there is a shortfall in the number of neutrinos detected.
And you are arguing from a philosophical belief in naturalism, not science.
A coordinate system can work fine either way with a truck going towards a motionless building at 60 mph, or the building moving towards a motionless truck at 60 mph. As a coordinate system either works fine. But the coordinate system doesn't explain what mechanism is moving the truck, or alternatively moving the building. You insist that no mechanism need be explained beyond your magic talisman of “general relativity” and “coordinate system”. But neither explains what is moving the truck towards the building, or alternatively, the building towards the truck.
But the proposed mechanism of an internal combustion engine explains how a truck could be moving at 60 mph; but nothing within the system as known could move the building towards the motionless truck at 60 mph.
Similarly the proposed mechanism of gravity explains how the tiny Earth could be moved around the massive Sun, you have not even proposed a mechanism whereby the massive Sun could be dragged around the tiny Earth while leaving the Earth motionless.
So what mechanism could do so?
What Biblical passages do you feel support Geocentricism?
Why are you so unwilling to answer these two fundamental questions?
Using the word 'science' to imply empiricism when he is speaking philosophically.
He does that all the time and it has been brought to his attention enough that he knows better; but he does it anyway.
Yes it has. Multiple times. You are just unable to understand the subject.
He does that all the time and it has been brought to his attention enough that he knows better; but he does it anyway.
Keep it up. I find it amusing that some of the posters who are farthest out on the fringe keep lecturing me on science.
Is there any nutty idea you guys won't espouse?
Somebody's got to keep you from claiming that your opinions are scientific.
"Accordingly, I do not regard my opinions in this area as metaphysical but scientific."
"Is there any nutty idea you guys won't espouse?"
Oh yeah. Several. Abiogenesis, big bang, evolution...
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.