This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Felloffher on 29 December 2012 - 05:12
The Bible is sufficient proof. It is an ancient and authentic document. Why do you want proof from outside the Bible? I never provide such evidence for anyone, because your request shows that you are not predisposed to accept it.
Shtal,
I'm not predisposed to accept things that don't make sence and I seek the truth. Spend some time researching Sumerian history, the authors of the bible seem to steal most of their beliefs and myths and then pass it off as Gods word. The biggest difference is the Sumerian's actually seem to have much more insight into the universe and the origins of our existence. Maybe this is the real reason why Genesis is so vague?
Christianity is a fraud, it doesn't take genius to figure this out.
Shtal,
I'm not predisposed to accept things that don't make sence and I seek the truth. Spend some time researching Sumerian history, the authors of the bible seem to steal most of their beliefs and myths and then pass it off as Gods word. The biggest difference is the Sumerian's actually seem to have much more insight into the universe and the origins of our existence. Maybe this is the real reason why Genesis is so vague?
Christianity is a fraud, it doesn't take genius to figure this out.
by Shtal on 29 December 2012 - 06:12
GSDtravels, Thank you for sharing your background a bit :-)
Regarding…. conservation angular momentum.
If you have central access that everything is coming out, it should be rotating in the same direction; maybe you can picture in your mind a spiral galaxy, if there was a single Big Bang explosion, we would expect heavenly bodies, to all be moving in the same direction, now would there be an occasion acceptation to that, maybe something bump into another cosmic-body, I would say absolutely…But GSDtravels bare in mind with our own solar system, we got Venus, Uranus and I believe also Pluto rotating backwards from the other planets, six out of sixty-three moons here in our own solar system they are going backwards, in fact Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune they have moons going in both directions. GSDtravels you wouldn’t expect that from the Big Bang explosion, would you?
Also why is the Sun 98% Hydrogen and Helium but the other planets less than 1% of Hydrogen and Helium?
btw, Your article is based on assumption
Shtal.
And don't forget about laws of thermodynamics, Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Regarding…. conservation angular momentum.
If you have central access that everything is coming out, it should be rotating in the same direction; maybe you can picture in your mind a spiral galaxy, if there was a single Big Bang explosion, we would expect heavenly bodies, to all be moving in the same direction, now would there be an occasion acceptation to that, maybe something bump into another cosmic-body, I would say absolutely…But GSDtravels bare in mind with our own solar system, we got Venus, Uranus and I believe also Pluto rotating backwards from the other planets, six out of sixty-three moons here in our own solar system they are going backwards, in fact Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune they have moons going in both directions. GSDtravels you wouldn’t expect that from the Big Bang explosion, would you?
Also why is the Sun 98% Hydrogen and Helium but the other planets less than 1% of Hydrogen and Helium?
btw, Your article is based on assumption
Shtal.
And don't forget about laws of thermodynamics, Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
by Shtal on 29 December 2012 - 06:12
Felloffher,
Whatever you say, I stand my ground, end of story.
Plus, I have science education and knowledge in religion.
You should read what GSDguy08 wrote in the first page on this thread:
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=682076-the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-what-is-space
Shtal.
Whatever you say, I stand my ground, end of story.
Plus, I have science education and knowledge in religion.
You should read what GSDguy08 wrote in the first page on this thread:
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=682076-the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-what-is-space
Shtal.
by Felloffher on 29 December 2012 - 07:12
Shtal,
I didn't expect you to cave so easily, but it's pretty difficult to defend the bible when comparing it to Sumerian myth. I read GSDguy's quote, so what?
I didn't expect you to cave so easily, but it's pretty difficult to defend the bible when comparing it to Sumerian myth. I read GSDguy's quote, so what?
by GSDtravels on 29 December 2012 - 12:12
Shtal, you'd better go back to school. You claim to have science education, yet you can't even distinguish between the different fields of sciences and what each emcompasses. I'm thinking you went to a school much like the one Hovind attended, a NOT school.
Your planets are spinning much like your logic. Science answered your planet question in the link I posted above. I guess you didn't major in reading comprehension when you were concentrating on those science courses.
Your planets are spinning much like your logic. Science answered your planet question in the link I posted above. I guess you didn't major in reading comprehension when you were concentrating on those science courses.
by GSDtravels on 29 December 2012 - 13:12
by Shtal on 30 December 2012 - 02:12
GSDtravels,
You need to read more widely. There are a great many peer-reviewed secular articles illustrating the conservation of angular momentum problem.
But, even if you felt that the nebular hypothesis really does fit with the observations, that would not provide a mechanism for back rotations, nor would it prove that the nebular hypothesis were correct. That would be a logical fallacy - the fallacy of "affirmation of the consequent".
btw, You cannot overcome this problem with your religion, because conservation of angular momentum is only second obstacle to your God, your primary obstacle which I will still remind you again about First law of thermodynamics, “Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or destroyed” It can only be changed and formed.
Shtal.
You need to read more widely. There are a great many peer-reviewed secular articles illustrating the conservation of angular momentum problem.
But, even if you felt that the nebular hypothesis really does fit with the observations, that would not provide a mechanism for back rotations, nor would it prove that the nebular hypothesis were correct. That would be a logical fallacy - the fallacy of "affirmation of the consequent".
btw, You cannot overcome this problem with your religion, because conservation of angular momentum is only second obstacle to your God, your primary obstacle which I will still remind you again about First law of thermodynamics, “Matter (and/or energy) cannot be created or destroyed” It can only be changed and formed.
Shtal.
by Shtal on 30 December 2012 - 05:12
by Felloffher on 30 December 2012 - 05:12
Shtal,
This God of science you speak of sounds divine. Is he on facebook?
This God of science you speak of sounds divine. Is he on facebook?
by Felloffher on 30 December 2012 - 05:12
Shtal,
That video you posted just confirmed creationism has no place in the realm of science. Thanks.
That video you posted just confirmed creationism has no place in the realm of science. Thanks.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top