Pseudo-Scientific Nonsense

[unlearningthemistakes]

that is so gentle yet reflective. I admire the post.<br /><br />our finite minds can never surpass, not even equal, something that is infinite. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Why don't you just admit that you believe in God.</font><br /><br />Why don’t you stop putting words in my mouth?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You are a very disrespectful and antagonizing person. You are very smug as well.</font><br /><br />Troll.<br /><br />Thanks for reviving a dead thread just so you could have the last word.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I'm willing to bet if your posting is any reflection of your real life that you are a very misserable and unlikable person.</font><br /><br />To reiterate: “Troll.”<br />

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - Sorry I didn't see this thread and your posts earlier. I will try to answer your good questions - hope you don't mind the delay.<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />1. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19) 1:11.<br /><br />Er, God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning - See Genesis 1:1. That would be billions of years before plants were created.<br /><br />However, that does not negate your question. Here are the verses you cite (after plants are created on the 3rd day - Genesis 1:11).<br /><br />(Genesis 1:14-19) . . .And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.<br /><br />NW footnote:<br /><br />“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·ya´`as (from `a·sah´). Different from “create” (ba·ra´´) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state. See App 3C<br /><br />Note from the different Hebrew words used that this is not referring to the earlier creation of the heavens, e.g. the sun, moon and stars.<br /><br />Rather, these heavenly bodies are made to appear in the expanse, or atmosphere or sky.<br /><br />Previously earth was in darkness due to dark accretion disks, but these gradually thined to allow light to reach earth's surface, and thus the

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Hi! Thank you for reviving this thread.<br /><br />There were many good questions posted here - I hope I have time to answer those not fully answered yet - hope you are all patient!

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Your from L.A. btw aren't you? I can always tell. Come on san andreas fault.</font><br /><br />Way to take the high road. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[newtonian]

telfrow - Hi! I'm from La!<br /><br />I hope we don't have faults!

 

[telfrow]

So is bonzelite. You two should get together and have a 3 x 3 at In-and-Out for me. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">If your the better person let it die without running your trap. </font><br /><br />Troll.<br />

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">“I'll revive the thread any time I feel like it. What are you going to do about it?”</font><br /><br />Let you make yourself into a fool......? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">“It will heat your little atheist ego to the boiling point then you won't be able to stop yourself from typing.”</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">“Your from L.A. btw aren't you? I can always tell. <b>Come on san andreas fault.”</b></font><br /><br />Ordinarily, I might respond……but I think that I’ll let that speak for itself.

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - You should cool down, you are losing logic!<br /><br />Try responding to my response to one of your questions - if, that is, you wish to back up your stand with someone who will research the matters you brought up to the nth degree, if necessary.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I will research another of your questions and post again before sleep time tonight.

 

[newtonian]

Contracommando - You posted:<br /><br />2) In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14 <br /><br />That is nonsense indeed! The verse is not talking about astrology. It reads:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:14) . . .And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. <br /><br />Nothing is said here about astrology.<br /><br />The sun, moon and stars are signs of God's majesty and power and wisdom. <br /><br />They are also signs used for navigation and travel, not only by man but also by many navigating animals.<br /><br />And, contextually, they are also signs marking the seasons. For example, the star-map in winter is different than in summer.<br /><br />The Bible actually condemns astrology.<br /><br />While we are encouraged to look at the stars to see the awesome creative power of God:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:26) 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.<br /><br />Yet the Bible condemns the lookers at the stars for the art of prediction:<br /><br />(Isaiah 47:12-15) 12 Stand still, now, with your spells and with the abundance of your sorceries, in which you have toiled from your youth; that perhaps you might be able to benefit, that perhaps you might strike people with awe. 13 You have grown weary with the multitude of your counselors. Let them stand up, now, and save you, the worshipers of the heavens, the lookers at the stars, those giving out knowledge at the new moons concerning the things tha

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">Try responding to my response to one of your questions - if, that is, you wish to back up your stand with someone who will research the matters you brought up to the nth degree, if necessary. </font><br /><br />No. You’re making the same mistakes cole did -- misconstruing facts and going to great lengths to excuse biblical errors and inconsistencies, while claiming that science does the same. I will no more debate someone who literally believes in the story of Noah than I would debate Castro on the merits of communism….seeing as though it would be pointless.<br /><br />Point in case: <font color="yellow">“The holy spirit went to and fro over these waters, perhaps creating life.” </font>highly speculative, wouldn‘t you say] and <font color="yellow">“Note from the different Hebrew words used that this is not referring to the earlier creation of the heavens, e.g. the sun, moon and stars.”</font><br /><br />You can stop posting because I will not answer. Tomorrow, I will request that my account be canceled.

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - Debate????<br /><br />I wasn't debating - sorry you got that impression.<br /><br />I was simply posting research relevant to your questions.<br /><br />You have already posted the questions - and many of them are good questions.<br /><br />I like researching questions - you need not respond, but feel free to do so.<br /><br />Cancel your account? What are you talking about???<br /><br />Do you mean leave SDC? Why?<br /><br />Meanwhile, I will research another of your questions into my sleeptime.<br /><br />I hope you can appreciate I am respectfully considering your posts and responding respectfully.<br /><br />I cannot post agreement with statements I do not agree with - sorry about that if that offends you.<br /><br />I am simply trying to discuss in a friendly manner - not debate.

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - You posted:<br /><br />5) Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14 <br /><br />And where, pray tell, did Cain get his wife if there were only two other humans alive at the time?<br /><br />The answer to this question is simple:<br /><br />(Genesis 5:4) . . .And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.<br /><br />That these other sons and daughters are not named in the account does not mean they did not exist. The Bible does not name every human that existed.<br /><br />Our literature states:<br /><br />Where did Cain get his wife? (Genesis 4:17)<br /><br />"One might think that after the murder of Abel, only his guilty brother Cain and their parents, Adam and Eve, were left on the earth. However, Adam and Eve had a large family. According to Genesis 5:3, 4, Adam had a son named Seth. The account adds: “The days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.” So Cain married his sister or perhaps one of his nieces. Since mankind was then so close to human perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the health risks that may imperil the offspring of such a union today."<br /><br />The more complete answer to your question involves genetics.<br /><br />Scientists have determined that all human races share the mitochondrial DNA of one mother, called the "mitochondrial Eve." <br /><br />This means that ultimately we are all related, and this then means that brother-sister marriage was once genetically safe.<br /><br />I have a tape of an educational program detailing study of the mitochondrial DNA of many races. A diagram was presented showing not only that there is one source - a mitochondrial Eve.<br /><br />The diagram also showed crossing in a genetic bottleneck through 3

 

[newtonian]

Contracommando - I am skipping some of your questions since simply reading the context would answer them and you clearly have not done that.<br /><br />However, other questions are good ones. Here is another you posted:<br /><br />7) The first men had incredibly long life spans. 5:5, 5:8, 5:11, 5:14, 5:17, 5:20, 5:23, 5:27, 5:31, 9:29 <br /><br />This relates to my above post - genetic studies of results of inbreeding + harmful recessive traits.<br /><br />One of the negative effects of the genetic bottleneck was decreased life span.<br /><br />Consider the pattern and compare this with what would be predicted by genetics:<br /><br />(Genesis 9:29) . . .So all the days of Noah amounted to nine hundred and fifty years and he died.<br /><br />For brevity, I will simply document the decrease in lifespan after the genetic bottleneck:<br /><br />Noah - 950 years - Ge.9:29<br />Shem - 600 years - Ge.11:10<br />Arpachshad - 438 years - Ge. 11:12,13<br />Shelah - 433 years - Ge. 11:14,15<br />Eber - 464 years - Ge. 11:16,17<br />Peleg - 239 years - Ge. 11:18,19<br />Reu - 239 years - Ge.11:20,21<br />Serug- 230 years - Ge. 11:22,23<br />Nahor - 148 years- Ge.11:24,25<br />Terah - 205 years- Ge. 11:32<br />Abraham - 175 years - Ge. 25:7<br />Isaac - 180 years - Ge. 35:28<br />Jacob - 147 years - Ge. 47:28<br /><br />The lifespan continued to decrease until the time of Moses, at which point brother and sister marriage became against the law. [Abraham, for example, married his half-sister Sarah].<br /><br />And the lifespan is now the same as when this inbreeding was stopped. Note the words of Moses in the 90th Psalm:<br /><br />(Psalm 90:10) 10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,. . .<br /><br />Remember, Moses wrote both the 90th Psalm and Genesis. <br /><br />One might ask how Moses recorded accurately effects that are consistent with a science not yet discovered: genetics!<br /><br />BTW - the law against incest was instituted in

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - You posted:<br /><br />2) Noah’s ark housing millions of species from a global flood in which there is NO scientific evidence of.<br /><br />Now we can bring this thread back to Astronomy, since the evidence for the flood ultimately involves earth's accretion of water and the origin of the planets.<br /><br />But first I will oblige your off astronomy tangents a little.<br /><br />Noah's ark did not contain millions of species.<br /><br />Rather:<br /><br />"Could the Ark Have Held All the Animals?<br /><br />It is true that encyclopedias refer to over a million species of animals. But Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list." - "Insight on the Scriptures," 1988, Volume 1, p. 327.<br /><br />Now, you assert there is NO scientific evidence for the Noachian flood.<br /><br />I submit that the evidence for the last ice age is actually evidence for the Noachian flood.<br /><br />This ultimately involves the question:<br /><br />Earth's sculptor: Ice or Water?<br /><br />I submit the evidence is in favor of water - and cite erratic boulders as but one example - since these are not always deposited from the postulated flow ice during the ice age - but also are deposited from directions opposite to the postulated glacial flow.<br /><br />One of many other avenues of scientific evidence involves examining arctic ice and permafrost. Many animals were suddenly frozen in the arctic - most publicized are mammoths.<br /><br />These animals were of species that are extinct, but kinds which survive. This is consistent with Noah preserving varieties of kinds from his area, while other varieties of the same kind went extinct.<br /><br />Thus

 

[eric2006]

Post deleted by Eric2006

 

[telfrow]

It has nothing to do with being a Christian or my "faith based views." I've never chosen to discuss my religious or political beliefs on this board. Some do. I don't. <br /><br />Please show me where anyone in this thread was wishing death and destruction on another poster, or a poster's area of the country. As I said, it's too bad you chose to abandon the high road. It was an inappropriate reference. <br /><br />My opinion. Take it or leave it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[eric2006]

You are right. It was inappropriate and I took the low-road. There is no excuse for it and I apologize to any who may have been offended.<br /><br />Maybe I don't speak for others but I feel ContraCommando’s attacks on God hit me on a personal level. <br /><br />It has been obvious that he has been hitting below the belt from the start. But that is no excuse for my behavior. This has even carried over to a PM I sent that was even worse.<br /><br />I lost character in this debate and I admit defeat. <br /><br />I apologize Contracomando for my personal attacks and my trolling behavior. I am sure you could care less though. But I admit your attacks were on religion in general and mine were personal.<br /><br /><br />With that note- I hope to be deleted from this board as well.<br /><br />Take care everyone who I had recently made friends with. Take care- ContraCommando. I apologize once again for taking it to the personal level.<br /><br />I hope you don't get frustrated with the Religious debates you have been in. And I hope you decide to stay in this discussion-group. Religion and politics I guess should be debated somewhere else. <br /><br />I have read your posts ContraCommando on other topics and you appear to be an intelligent poster with many good things to say. <br /><br />I retract my 2 cents, submit my defeat and offer my resignation.<br /><br />I have thus deleted every post I submitted in this thread.<br /><br />Please do me a favor ContraCommando. <br /><br />I am too lazy to request that my account be deleted. Can you please forward my Private Message I sent you to a moderator? It is 100% grounds for termination from this forum. That way it would save me the trouble. Thanks.<br /><br />Not everyone is a fundamentalist btw and views the Bible the way you are describing. As far as creationism and I.D. I don't see someone as stupid for believing in it. But it has no place in Science or in our political system. Also, some people (such as myself) don't take every story in the Bible as

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

to contra commando and eric:<br /><br />why leave? <br />there is no need to leave. every now and then statements of different points of view create mild to intense discussion. it is the human part of us to go rocket against opposing ideas and beliefs/personalities. In my humble opinion, redemption might be enough for a make-up. by the way I see things, there is no need to request for a pink slip. <br /><br />I'm in no position to talk about this. but being a fellow poster, I considered this to be appropriate and modest. it's just a friendly remark on how I see things. don't give up your membership just because some flaming happened. <br /><br />remember: there were some banned posters who re-turned to the forum just to troll around, flame around. trolling is what drives this folks. they get reprimanded and banned time and again. they keep recurring. the two of you are way too far from them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - I would prefer you stayed. Please. Perhaps just simply take a vacation - relax in a board where your beliefs will not be challenged.<br /><br />I also was upset by Contracommando's attack on God and the Bible - you were right to be upset.<br /><br />However, note this fine counsel on the best way to respond (we all sin and fail to perfectly follow this counsel at times):<br /><br />(1 Peter 3:15) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.<br /><br />And, while we are not going to be as good as Jesus, note Jesus' response concerning those who caused him to be tortured to death:<br /><br />(Luke 23:34) 34 [[But Jesus was saying: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”]] . . .<br /><br />Clearly, Contracommando is not a Bible student and therefore really doesn't know what he is doing.<br /><br />He has displayed an obvious lack of knowledge of Biblical context in some of his questions.<br /><br />This is common - there are few really in depth Bible students trying to objectively determine truth. <br /><br />BTW - I and my faith do not fit into fundamentalist or creationist or ID molds - I and we are independent of these movements - we strive for truth and like any good scientist are humble enough to reject cherished beliefs if they are disproven - this is why our literature of 100 years ago is out of date, as is 100 year old scientific literature.<br /><br />The marvel is that the Bible, many times older, remains accurate scientifically and in practical application to life.<br /><br />Btw - we take literal those things in a literal context, and take symbolic those things in a symbolic context - and interestingly some accounts are both - i.e. there are literal object lessons for further symbolic or at lest extended application.<br /><br />The key is context - and this is true whether the refe

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - I did not start this thread, and frankly I am surprised it was tolerated in the ask the astronomer section.<br /><br />I am simply responding to posts here on this thread.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion, of course.<br /><br />However, if attacks on the Bible are tolerated in this section, why shouldn't a defense of the Bible also be allowed?<br /><br />Yes, it is obvious you wish to silence any defense so you can feel comfortable with your belief that there is no defense.<br /><br />I believe the Bible is a source of accurate scientific knowledge.<br /><br />You believe the opposite.<br /><br />Where is your proof?<br /><br />I am posting my defense - that is all. <br /><br />BTW - Eric is not leaving because of me - this whole flaming thing happenned before I posted on this thread.

 

[CalliArcale]

It is worth pointing out that there will likely be a shift in what is allowed and what is not allowed in the science forums in the near future. Newtonian is quite right that if an attack on the Bible is allowed, so should a defense. However, neither is especially scientific. Religion has enjoyed a bit of a free pass, but that will probably change with the introduction of the content mods. It'll probably be shifted either to Phenomena or Free Space; it would be appropriate in either forum.<br /><br />However, I don't think crazyeddie wishes to silence opposition so he can believe that there is no defense. On the contrary, I think he's merely expressing a frustration with the entire dialog -- not with any one side of it. To be honest, he's not the only one to have that frustration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>