Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience I could share reasons people think the moon arose due to a collision with a foreign body and the earth if you'd like. But, as you've determined such activities don't constitute science, no matter how carefully modeled or what observations they are based on don't count as science it may be an exercise in futility. No, it's true, the great secret is out, we don't know everything. The case for dark matter is quite good right now though, and people are actively engaged in trying to detect it and pin what it is. It is possible that they won't find it, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I'd be pretty surprised, but such is the nature of science. "as you've determined such activities don't constitute science" Correction it's not that "I've" determined....it's inherent by it's very nature, just so there is no misunderstanding or applying "Ad Hoc" definitions to things: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Strawberries are Strawberries and Watermelons are Watermelons: gotta Love The Beauty of TRUTH, there are no OPINIONS.... it just IS. "The case for dark matter is quite good" I'm sure it is....IT MUST. A textbook example of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis/Pseudo-Science....right up there with Punctuated Equilibrium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here. Spock, Spock. The majority of Secular "Scientists" (and I would say more like the power behind them) are the ones trying they're best to explain away GOD with their "CLAIMS" of this and that. Then their 13th Century Alchemy graces the Elementary-College TextBooks and are portrayed as Scientific FACT. Then the media grabs hold of these Modern Day Fairytales and pushes the Half-Baked Propaganda (LIES) Over and Over and Over again. By the time the Average Kid gets to college (if the get that chance), they are so overwhelmingly indoctrinated by the Culture/Education/PEERS any semblance of the WORD of GOD, even if they've been brought up with it, fades away into oblivion. Even if they question it, they're are ridiculed endlessly (or worse) with the usual: "Dumb/Ignorant Creationists", "You believe Primitive Stupid Goatherders??"....that's what can be printed!!! How do they do it and what's the first target?? They surreptitiously and in some cases overtly attack GENESIS. THEY KNOW, If they can somehow create DOUBT in the PILLARED FOUNDATION of the CLEAR TEACHINGS in Genesis....then the whole COLLAPSES, basically uncontested. WHO WAS THE FIRST TO CREATE DOUBT THEN OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF THE WORD IN GENESIS??? I'm sick of the LIES and I won't stand for it!!! I will expose it EVERY TIME I SEE IT....The LORD has put it on my Heart. What's my Authority?...... (Ephesians 5:11) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Am I direct? Yes. Is that directness misconstrued as rude and insulting? Yes. Do I need work with meekness and gentleness? Yes. Am I fallible (stupid question) Yes, just ask my wife. But I will not stand for the Lies!!! Period, End of Story!! ps. not solely directed @ you Tell me how you really feel. I hope you feel better now, and I was glad to help you get that off your chest. Phew! Spock running out of this fire Thanks for Listening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 28, 2014 I am not in the young earth brigade Now that is a good one LOL. Now I'm a YEB I'm curious why your not a YEB? No compelling evidence. Can you offer evidence? Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence. Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking. Thanks There you have it! There is no compelling evidence either way! The bible would tell us, in no uncertain terms if God wanted us, or thought we needed to know. But He did not, just like there are a myriad of things Jesus did that the bible does not talk about because we don't need to know. What we know, what we have been given, is enough. Would knowing that the earth was 6,001 years old, or 14.72 million/billion years old change what I feel about Jesus? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is reborn, new, refreshed, renewed within me every time I take a breath. And yet He is eternal. It has nothing to do with how old is dirt. That's what makes sense to me personally. Amen, brother. You said in a few words all that really matters for our good. I can testify that at one time I believed the earth was a few thousand years old, and now I believe it is billions years old. So what? My life isn't any more joyful or abundant because of this change. Thanks for bringing this perspective into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience I could share reasons people think the moon arose due to a collision with a foreign body and the earth if you'd like. But, as you've determined such activities don't constitute science, no matter how carefully modeled or what observations they are based on don't count as science it may be an exercise in futility. No, it's true, the great secret is out, we don't know everything. The case for dark matter is quite good right now though, and people are actively engaged in trying to detect it and pin what it is. It is possible that they won't find it, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I'd be pretty surprised, but such is the nature of science. "as you've determined such activities don't constitute science" Correction it's not that "I've" determined....it's inherent by it's very nature, just so there is no misunderstanding or applying "Ad Hoc" definitions to things: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Strawberries are Strawberries and Watermelons are Watermelons: gotta Love The Beauty of TRUTH, there are no OPINIONS.... it just IS. "The case for dark matter is quite good" I'm sure it is....IT MUST. A textbook example of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis/Pseudo-Science....right up there with Punctuated Equilibrium. Well, the case for dark matter should be decided in the next decade with direct detection. That's the way it should be. We have strong reason to think it exists, because our theories of gravity work so well otherwise. We don't rest there, we think of ways to test this notion more specifically, and of course in the end, the best way is to have a way to do direct detection and end all doubts. Sometimes direct detection doesn't seem possible, or we aren't clever enough to think of a way to do it, so we do the best we can to test the hypothesis as rigorously possible short of that ideal. I just think your insistence on a bizarrely narrow definition of science to not be very interesting. Insofar as it excludes astronomy, it's a bad definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I am not in the young earth brigade Now that is a good one LOL. Now I'm a YEB I'm curious why your not a YEB? No compelling evidence. Can you offer evidence? Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence. Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking. Thanks There you have it! There is no compelling evidence either way! The bible would tell us, in no uncertain terms if God wanted us, or thought we needed to know. But He did not, just like there are a myriad of things Jesus did that the bible does not talk about because we don't need to know. What we know, what we have been given, is enough. Would knowing that the earth was 6,001 years old, or 14.72 million/billion years old change what I feel about Jesus? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is reborn, new, refreshed, renewed within me every time I take a breath. And yet He is eternal. It has nothing to do with how old is dirt. That's what makes sense to me personally. I'm good with that. However, I do have an issue (well many) LOL. If there's no compelling evidence either way, then...... TAKE IT OUT OF THE TEXTBOOKS AND STOP TEACHING MY KIDS FAIRYTALES (not to you personally Fez) then using it as a Platform to teach another fairytale evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I am not in the young earth brigade Now that is a good one LOL. Now I'm a YEB I'm curious why your not a YEB? No compelling evidence. Can you offer evidence? Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence. Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking. Thanks There you have it! There is no compelling evidence either way! The bible would tell us, in no uncertain terms if God wanted us, or thought we needed to know. But He did not, just like there are a myriad of things Jesus did that the bible does not talk about because we don't need to know. What we know, what we have been given, is enough. Would knowing that the earth was 6,001 years old, or 14.72 million/billion years old change what I feel about Jesus? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is reborn, new, refreshed, renewed within me every time I take a breath. And yet He is eternal. It has nothing to do with how old is dirt. That's what makes sense to me personally. I'm good with that. However, I do have an issue (well many) LOL. If there's no compelling evidence either way, then...... TAKE IT OUT OF THE TEXTBOOKS AND STOP TEACHING MY KIDS FAIRYTALES (not to you personally Fez) then using it as a Platform to teach another fairytale evolution. I would agree with that. There must be some way to teach our children to think for themselves. There is a horrific trend in South African primary schooling right now (I have a friend who home schools and is being forced into it), and that is that children are taught what all the major religions are. From Buddhism to Hinduism. Even if you are a declared Christian you are forced to attend the classes as part of the government curriculum.. One can only pray that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to these young minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm good with that. However, I do have an issue (well many) LOL. If there's no compelling evidence either way, then...... TAKE IT OUT OF THE TEXTBOOKS AND STOP TEACHING MY KIDS FAIRYTALES (not to you personally Fez) then using it as a Platform to teach another fairytale evolution. I would agree with that. There must be some way to teach our children to think for themselves. There is a horrific trend in South African primary schooling right now (I have a friend who home schools and is being forced into it), and that is that children are taught what all the major religions are. From Buddhism to Hinduism. Even if you are a declared Christian you are forced to attend the classes as part of the government curriculum.. One can only pray that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to these young minds. That's not good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 There you have it! There is no compelling evidence either way! The bible would tell us, in no uncertain terms if God wanted us, or thought we needed to know. But He did not, just like there are a myriad of things Jesus did that the bible does not talk about because we don't need to know. What we know, what we have been given, is enough. Would knowing that the earth was 6,001 years old, or 14.72 million/billion years old change what I feel about Jesus? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is reborn, new, refreshed, renewed within me every time I take a breath. And yet He is eternal. It has nothing to do with how old is dirt. That's what makes sense to me personally. Actually there is a lot of evidence for a young earth. While the old earthers have assumptions and postulations about the past. There is the fossil record and the geolgical columns that show rapid deposition and no signs of the kind of erosion that millions of years would inflict. To say there is no compelling evidence simply isn't true. In addition to that, when you take the rate of population growth into account, the human population would have easily overcrowded the earth a long time ago, and that is accounting for wars, epidemic diseases, and other causes of death other than natural causes. The issue of the age of the earth may not make a difference to a seasoned believer who has been walking with the Lord for while. I will grant that. But to those who sit on the fence who are being taught that the biblical record is faulty and that while the Bible demonstrates a much younger earth, it can't be trusted, that the Bible was written by ignorant ancient men who had no idea how the world works, it will DEFINITELY have the potential to affect their views on Jesus. If they are taught that the Bible can't be trusted coming right out of the gate, it sets a strong precedent not to trust the Bible in other areas as well; areas that are critical to salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience "as you've determined such activities don't constitute science" Correction it's not that "I've" determined....it's inherent by it's very nature, just so there is no misunderstanding or applying "Ad Hoc" definitions to things: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Strawberries are Strawberries and Watermelons are Watermelons: gotta Love The Beauty of TRUTH, there are no OPINIONS.... it just IS. "The case for dark matter is quite good" I'm sure it is....IT MUST. A textbook example of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis/Pseudo-Science....right up there with Punctuated Equilibrium. Well, the case for dark matter should be decided in the next decade with direct detection. That's the way it should be. We have strong reason to think it exists, because our theories of gravity work so well otherwise. We don't rest there, we think of ways to test this notion more specifically, and of course in the end, the best way is to have a way to do direct detection and end all doubts. Sometimes direct detection doesn't seem possible, or we aren't clever enough to think of a way to do it, so we do the best we can to test the hypothesis as rigorously possible short of that ideal. I just think your insistence on a bizarrely narrow definition of science to not be very interesting. Insofar as it excludes astronomy, it's a bad definition. "Well, the case for dark matter should be decided in the next decade with direct detection." And it's still a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "I just think your insistence on a bizarrely narrow definition of science to not be very interesting. Insofar as it excludes astronomy, it's a bad definition." We must be mis-communicating. Are you saying I work for wikipedia? I've thought about it, there's just no other way..... read this slowly: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Can you point to the specific area that you're not understanding? Ya see, this Protects the INTEGRITY of the discipline from attacks of (ASSUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES, STORIES, FABLES, MYTHS, AND BASELESS UNSUPPORTED CONTRIVED DREAMLAND FANTASIES) Are we tracking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 29, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience "as you've determined such activities don't constitute science" Correction it's not that "I've" determined....it's inherent by it's very nature, just so there is no misunderstanding or applying "Ad Hoc" definitions to things: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Strawberries are Strawberries and Watermelons are Watermelons: gotta Love The Beauty of TRUTH, there are no OPINIONS.... it just IS. "The case for dark matter is quite good" I'm sure it is....IT MUST. A textbook example of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis/Pseudo-Science....right up there with Punctuated Equilibrium. Well, the case for dark matter should be decided in the next decade with direct detection. That's the way it should be. We have strong reason to think it exists, because our theories of gravity work so well otherwise. We don't rest there, we think of ways to test this notion more specifically, and of course in the end, the best way is to have a way to do direct detection and end all doubts. Sometimes direct detection doesn't seem possible, or we aren't clever enough to think of a way to do it, so we do the best we can to test the hypothesis as rigorously possible short of that ideal. I just think your insistence on a bizarrely narrow definition of science to not be very interesting. Insofar as it excludes astronomy, it's a bad definition. "Well, the case for dark matter should be decided in the next decade with direct detection." And it's still a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "I just think your insistence on a bizarrely narrow definition of science to not be very interesting. Insofar as it excludes astronomy, it's a bad definition." We must be mis-communicating. Are you saying I work for wikipedia? I've thought about it, there's just no other way..... read this slowly: 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence Can you point to the specific area that you're not understanding? Ya see, this Protects the INTEGRITY of the discipline from attacks of (ASSUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES, STORIES, FABLES, MYTHS, AND BASELESS UNSUPPORTED CONTRIVED DREAMLAND FANTASIES) Are we tracking? First, "observations and experimental results" does not mean *always experimental results*. That is, you can have scientific evidence that we've obtained from observation, and we can have scientific evidence evidence obtained from controlled experimental results. Second, definitions are arbitrary. If I don't find one useful for specific reasons, I state those reasons and come up with a new definition that I think is a better fit. I keep asking and I wonder. Do you think astronomy is a science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts