ezekiel Posted February 27, 2017 Group: Seeker Followers: 2 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 315 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 60 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1959 Share Posted February 27, 2017 On 2/25/2017 at 7:48 PM, Enoch2021 said: Yea. Gravity?? Which Gravity ... EinSHtienian or Newtonian ?? A. Is gravity a Force? B. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? C. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/a/hypothesis.htm Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A Little' Pregnant!!* REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA (lol) !!! A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! That goes for both Geo and Helio Centric "Models". Above and Beyond them?? They never performed any Experiments to show that Stars are Suns, for goodness sakes. And nobody else has either. It'd be easier Sprouting Broccoli out of their Armpits. All they have are "Just So" Stories. regards Just got this great ideal go to God ask him. He speaks of me. He also speaks of John ask him when he begins. Its the spirit of the word so speak to Him in spirit and wait. Make your spirit strong and its only by the study of His Words, but all to many make the body strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezekiel Posted February 28, 2017 Group: Seeker Followers: 2 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 315 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 60 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/31/1959 Share Posted February 28, 2017 On 2/22/2017 at 7:55 AM, ezekiel said: They are three dwarf stars besides our sun. One on our plain the east, another on a south orbit, both of these come into the inner court after so many thousands of years, the third in the outer court at about 100 plus AU. Are you a astrophysics OneLight that you may understand the reaction when they enter the inner court at the same time. The star coming from the west has 7 planets and the same orbit like earth but way out. Ezekiel says it like this 7 angles came from the higher gate. Revelations says it like this, a star came from heaven. Also its said Micheal will stand up at this time for the children of Israel. Also said are that Micheal has a chain in his hand and grab hold of that fiery red dragon of old and set it at a 1000 years. This is the meaning of all these things. Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelations. God is in control of all note, God will never again change the orbits for man like He did for Joshua. Hezekiah was a normal event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No124get1952 Posted March 9, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 159 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 184 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/17/1952 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think it's time for me to put my 2 cents in. First, it IS possible to be a part of the scientific community without denying your Christian faith. Every serious, scientific investigation conducted has affirmed scripture in some fashion. Now to the REAL issue..that of the scientific method, as others have referred to. The scientific method was developed in order that researchers (i.e. scientists) could standardize the presentation, the accomplishment and the interpretation of their research. In other words, if scientist A discovered gravity through an experiment, the scientific method provided procedures and guidelines whereby scientist B could repeat the experiment and duplicate the first results. In scientific eras prior to the late 20th century and early 21st century, the scientific method was held to be very holy and inviolable. You could not gain scientific credibility unless your discovery had been verified by your peers. What we have devolved into is that science is now scientific if the "majority" of scientists reach consensus. Now the scientific definition of consensus is not readily available, but it is roughly when "most" of scientists agree to some degree with a concept. There are no mathematical or statistical guidelines here so the exact moment consensus is reached is hard to quantify. Also unquantifiable is the amount of consensus (presumably on a scale of 0-100%). The problem, of course, is that sticky old-fashion concept of the "scientific method" because suddenly we can no longer duplicate the results....and we have no standard method to achieve results....and we have no scientific controls over the "experiments"(also known as scientific assertions)....and alas we really have no science either. But, because the topics are about science, those who revel in scientific consensus are granted "gravitas" when speaking on scientific subjects they may even know about but cannot back up with scientific evidence. In other words, most scientific pontification these days is "bullspit". That moves us to the debate over global warming/climate change and who causes it. Of all of the information I have gathered over the last 40 years of my adult life, nobody has mentioned how much the sun affects global climate. While there may be some information out there, I have not seen nor heard of any scientific study that attempts to quantify the amount of climate change caused by the sun. This is strange because we pretty much know how much light, heat, radiation, etc. the sun puts out. The distance between earth and sun has been established for several hundred years and we have satellites now that can verify that information and even average it out for the changes in distance due to our orbit around the sun. That should be quantifiable and verifiable. Nor have I seen anyone attempt to establish a baseline as to where we begin analysis of global climate change. How much is normal? How much is acceptable? How do we establish proof that a certain source (mankind, sun, comets, etc.) is responsible? How do we quantify that? Under the terms of that old "scientific method", we need procedures and rules to allow experiments that can be duplicated and results that can be verified by multiple studies. Too bad that science has devolved to consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific fact. While the topic of global climate change is important, it is NOT Christian. Deep research into the sources for global climate change consensus reveal that there are marxist and even communist sources for this new "religion". It takes more faith to believe that mankind has caused global climate change than to believe in Jesus. I would even go so far (stirring the pot here) as to say that you cannot be a Christian and believe in manmade global warming. Notice I said manmade. There is NO scientific (reputable and repeatable) evidence that proves man has significantly changed the global climate. We DO, however, know, that in small, specific regions (not worldwide), local ecosystems and local climate systems have been changed; in some cases they have also been changed back by environmental cleanup efforts. However, to assert that these "local" examples can be extended to global climate is neither logical nor scientifically supportable....however, they DO give us facts for doing more global research (if unbiased, scientific research is even still possible). After the revelations of the data manipulation of the East Anglia global temperature data, ALL global warming/climate change assertions must be re-evaluated and reconsidered because of scientific malfeasance...that means wrong doing. We cannot support the spending of billions of dollars in taxpayer money on efforts that might make a 0.0001% difference in 100 years. We should spend that money on determining better ways to feed the hungry...or even heal the sick. Sorry, but I come down on the side of global climate change deniers....and you cannot provide me scientific proof that I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Center4ScientificHumanism Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 On 11/25/2016 at 10:05 PM, HisFirst said: Can you be part of the scientific community without compromising your Christianity? I know there are many scientists who are Christians but there must be huge pressure from within the scientific field to bend ones belief system..? You can, yes. However, to be intellectually honest with one's self, a Christian would arguably have to remove the unscientific parts of their Bible, before they give it to their impressionable young children - w/out being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest with them and their family. A talking donkey, a talking snake, a talking burning bush? Not scientifically-correct of course (but I respect Christians for having that in their book - it's just that they can't then also claim to be very scientific, arguably.) Have a great day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted March 17, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Center4ScientificHumanism said: You can, yes. However, to be intellectually honest with one's self, a Christian would arguably have to remove the unscientific parts of their Bible, before they give it to their impressionable young children - w/out being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest with them and their family. A talking donkey, a talking snake, a talking burning bush? Not scientifically-correct of course (but I respect Christians for having that in their book - it's just that they can't then also claim to be very scientific, arguably.) Have a great day. 500 years ago, our scientific knowledge was virtually zero. Now how much percentage of total knowledge have humans acquired in and out of this universe, 100%? For the sake of argument, I assume that we humans have already acquired 90% of the total knowledge in and out of this universe. Then what will you call the 10% knowledge which we may be clueless about, unscientific? That said, other than science do you have some knowledge about what metaphors are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Center4ScientificHumanism Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 14 hours ago, Hawkins said: 500 years ago, our scientific knowledge was virtually zero. Now how much percentage of total knowledge have humans acquired in and out of this universe, 100%? For the sake of argument, I assume that we humans have already acquired 90% of the total knowledge in and out of this universe. Then what will you call the 10% knowledge which we may be clueless about, unscientific? That said, other than science do you have some knowledge about what metaphors are? If a talking snake and a talking donkey are just metaphors, interesting stories but not to be taken literally, then to be intellectually consistent, one would ALSO have to say that the story of a talking dead guy who will come back to life to let you survive your death is ALSO just an interesting metaphor....a metaphor for rebirth, say. But not to be taken literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Center4ScientificHumanism Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Hawkins said: ...... Then what will you call the 10% knowledge which we may be clueless about, unscientific? Just don't fill that 10% in with myths that are clearly unscientific (a talking snake, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, "demons", "walking on water", surviving your own death in "heaven", etc.) Edited March 18, 2017 by Center4ScientificHumanism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted March 22, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 3/18/2017 at 9:31 AM, Center4ScientificHumanism said: Just don't fill that 10% in with myths that are clearly unscientific (a talking snake, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, "demons", "walking on water", surviving your own death in "heaven", etc.) How do you know that it's myth, other than it's a definition by your own faith? You have a full record of the whole of Jonah's life for you to be sure that it's not his true experience. Or simply because it's not a common experience that you conclude with faith that it's not possible? Science is never as close minded as "because it's not a common human experience such that it's not possible". It is in the very contrary that science is very often exploring in the realm where human experience itself has no bearing on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BacKaran Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 On 11/28/2016 at 5:58 PM, Bonky said: Why does the religious right oppose climate change? I never really did understand that. Oh I dunno... Maybe it's cuz it's always been called "the weather" for hundreds of years and people understand it changes all the time.... Climate change is a farce and I never really can understand non believers who fall for it... Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woundeddog Posted March 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,370 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 1,054 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/21/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/18/1868 Share Posted March 23, 2017 On 11/25/2016 at 9:49 PM, HisFirst said: So, Global warming does not have a Christian basis? well when you get into the book of Revelations there is plenty of Global warming-- but nothing man could do anything about ~~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts