RE: Earth Basics

RE: Earth Basics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

[Poll]

Earth Basics

The Earth is round, and gravitational attraction is in force

34% (36)

The Earth is flat. You can fall off the edge.

1% (2)

The Earth does not rotate on an axis. It stands still

1% (2)

The Earth rotates around the Sun

31% (33)

Science is a tool of Satan, as is education in general

1% (2)

Science is neither moral nor immoral.

28% (30)

Total Votes : 105

(last vote on : 8/14/2008 10:02:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 7:55:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter Well theoretically, it's probably at least possible that the earth is the only thing in the universe that's not moving at all, and everything else might actually be in motion, right? I'd have to wonder if physics could definitively prove otherwise. It depends how many laws of physics you're willing to break. For instance, the nearest stars (other than the sun) are several light years away. If they go around the earth every day, then they travel many light years per day, faster than the speed of light. This is considered a no-no in physics. A more interesting situation comes up with respect to the Coriolis force. At the risk of confusing everybody (including myself), the Coriolis force is a fictitious force. It doesn't really exist, it just appears to precisely because we 'pretend' that the earth is fixed when we do our freshman physics calculations. If you fire a cannon due north, you expect the cannon ball to land due north of you. It doesn't, because the earth isn't fixed, but rotating. Similarly, if you drop a mass from a tall height (in a vacuum), it doesn't land directly beneath its starting point. It's deflected slightly east and south, due to the Coriolis force (in the northern hemisphere). So... since the earth rotates, there appears to be a Coriolis force. But we understand that it's really just an artifact of assuming a fixed earth for ease in calculation. If the earth didn't rotate, no Coriolis 'force' should appear. But we really do measure those deflections. They're real. As are hurricanes (which always rotate the same way in the Northern Hemisphere due to the Coriolis 'force'). So if the earth were really fixed, that would mean that the Coriolis force was actually real! But it's not gravity or electricity or any of the known forces. It would have to be a new mystery force that always coincidentally acted in such a way that the earth appeared to be rotating once a day. The fixed earther's mystery force is kind of like the young earther's mystery force that makes radioactive nuclei decay at a changing rate that always coincidentally acts in such a way that the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old.

iluvatar -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Does the entire universe revolve around the earth? Actually, there is some intriguing data that supports a geocentric view of the universe, so it's not as far-fetched as some of you are thinking. Except that further study has more-or-less shown these periods/regularities to be non-existent. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization quote: Personally, I believe mankind is the "center" of the universe because we are the focal point of God's Love. How all the astrophysics works out is really not crucial to that Truth! I agree. quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Even ICR rejects geocentric nonsense. Being "well-respected" in YEC is hardly something to tout. Well cow, if you would bother to read ICR literature instead of spouting off about it, you would quickly find Dr Humphreys' recent article on Creation Cosmology which readily supports the "center of the universe" argument. (cow opens mouth and inserts hoof) I can write an article supporting the notion that the city of Toledo as we know it doesn't actually exist - that it's actually home to a large government facility in the middle of open grassland. Our perception of Toledo is merely the result of an elaborate ruse executed through the use of extensive broadcast airwave manipulation and sophisticated holography. But that doesn't mean I'd be correct. Did you read Humphrey's article? If so, what did you think of it? Even trying to set aside my anti-YEC leanings, it reads like a bunch of nonsense. Essentially, a giant layer of water surrounding the entire universe increases the mass and gravitational energy of the universe in such a way as to speed up light and cause measurable Hubble expansion on scales orders of magnitude smaller than previously observed. I suppose it doesn't matter that there are plenty of other heavenly bodies in the sky (farther away than Pioneer) out there for which we can't measure any Hubble expansion, because gravitational binding overcomes that expansion. If you're interested, some think that the Pioneer anomaly might be related to the Flyby anomaly. Scientists have gone back and recovered some ~30 years of flight data from Pioneer 10 & 11 hoping to re-analyze it and find out more details. The newest info I can find is from last year, all of it saying that the analysis should be done some time this year. Should be interesting. -Dan.

iluvatar -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Well theoretically, it's probably at least possible that the earth is the only thing in the universe that's not moving at all, and everything else might actually be in motion, right? I'd have to wonder if physics could definitively prove otherwise. Technically, any one of us could be the center of the unverse. In fact, when I walk, I am not moving, but instead, the earth is rolling aorund under me. [;)] When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down. -Dan.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:36:43 PM)
quote: Did you read Humphrey's article? If so, what did you think of it? Even trying to set aside my anti-YEC leanings, it reads like a bunch of nonsense. No worse than the BB "bunch of nonsense" I occasionally read in the godless "science" literature, Dan. I guess we're even!

bluestone -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:50:24 PM)
I always knew there was something fishy about Toledo.[&:]

CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bluestone I always knew there was something fishy about Toledo.[&:] I'm beginning to think we're not really here and it's all a pigment of our collective imagination.[sm=error.gif]

bluestone -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 8:54:16 PM)
Some teenager on a far away planet is having a dream after eating too many cheetos, and we are it? OR we are just a science fiction book some dude in another galaxy wrote.."The Earthlings"

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 9:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I'm sorry, Kristin, are you not getting this? God shows His Love to us by creating the world and us living in it to be His focal point or centerpiece of Love. The spatial orientation of earth in the universe is but one (rather insignificant) way He demonstrates mankind's centrality. In fact, the Bible says very little about it directly. But rest assured, the Bible says nothing about "millions of other worlds out there" with souls to be loved. Ummm so? The God I believe in is big enough and great enough to be able to love me in ways I cannot even comprehend as well as 6 billion other folks on this earth. And if He desired to created other worlds out there, His love for me wouldn't diminish one bit. And the spatial orientation of the earth is nothing more than the spatial orientation of the earth. Just like I am no more or no less important to God because I live in eastern Washington than someone who lives on the equator. And besides: the universe isn't about me. Shocking as that may seem... [8D] I always thought that God was the Center and I'm not talking in the physical sense...

GroupW -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 9:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Well theoretically, it's probably at least possible that the earth is the only thing in the universe that's not moving at all, and everything else might actually be in motion, right? I'd have to wonder if physics could definitively prove otherwise. Technically, any one of us could be the center of the unverse. In fact, when I walk, I am not moving, but instead, the earth is rolling aorund under me. [;)] Is that why I keep tripping over the cracks in the sidewalk? I thought I was just a klutz.

iluvatar -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 9:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Did you read Humphrey's article? If so, what did you think of it? Even trying to set aside my anti-YEC leanings, it reads like a bunch of nonsense. No worse than the BB "bunch of nonsense" I occasionally read in the godless "science" literature, Dan. I guess we're even! It's not an issue of being "even." What did you think of his article? -Dan.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 9:49:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Well theoretically, it's probably at least possible that the earth is the only thing in the universe that's not moving at all, and everything else might actually be in motion, right? I'd have to wonder if physics could definitively prove otherwise. Technically, any one of us could be the center of the unverse. In fact, when I walk, I am not moving, but instead, the earth is rolling aorund under me. [;)] Is that why I keep tripping over the cracks in the sidewalk? I thought I was just a klutz. Maybe folks who are dizzy are the only ones without vertigo....[sm=icon_smile_idea.gif]

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 9:55:36 PM)
quote: And besides: the universe isn't about me. Shocking as that may seem... I always thought that God was the Center and I'm not talking in the physical sense... Yes, and isn't it absolutely grand that he chooses to share His glory by making us the centerpiece of creation. Amazing grace I call it! quote: What did you think of his article? I find it to be a well-reasoned synthesis of physics and Scripture which attempts to explain a very abstruse concept. Certainly a lot less laughable than completely unverifiable "braneworlds and multiverses"!

iluvatar -> RE: Earth Basics (3/11/2008 10:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: And besides: the universe isn't about me. Shocking as that may seem... I always thought that God was the Center and I'm not talking in the physical sense... Yes, and isn't it absolutely grand that he chooses to share His glory by making us the centerpiece of creation. Amazing grace I call it! quote: What did you think of his article? I find it to be a well-reasoned synthesis of physics and Scripture which attempts to explain a very abstruse concept. Certainly a lot less laughable than completely unverifiable "braneworlds and multiverses"! How well does it synthesize physics when it suggests that we observe spacial expansion on satellites within the immediate vicinity of our solar system, but not on celestial bodies well beyond that range but still relatively "close" to us? -Dan.

doinkdom -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 9:54:06 AM)
Alls I know is Samantha Carter would totally disagree with all y'all.[;)] Indeed [8D]

cow451 -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 11:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Even ICR rejects geocentric nonsense. Being "well-respected" in YEC is hardly something to tout. Well cow, if you would bother to read ICR literature instead of spouting off about it, you would quickly find Dr Humphreys' recent article on Creation Cosmology which readily supports the "center of the universe" argument. (cow opens mouth and inserts hoof) This from ICR LINK

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 11:58:53 AM)
Good article, cow. I particularly like this summary statement: quote: The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity. This is the way it is with scientific theories�they come and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches. So, are you ready to give up on your theory of evolution as a basis from which to interpret Scripture?

cow451 -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 12:55:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Good article, cow. I particularly like this summary statement: quote: The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity. This is the way it is with scientific theories�they come and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches. So, are you ready to give up on your theory of evolution as a basis from which to interpret Scripture? First of all, it isn't the basis. I'll give up on evolution when the scientific evidence invalidates it. My view of scripture won't change, since God's word is eternal and not dependent on science.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 1:12:25 PM)
I'm always ready to consider any support for evolution from God's Word, cow. Do you have any? I know you don't have any "scientific evidence" to validate evolution, so don't bother with that!

AllForIsrael -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 1:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I'm always ready to consider any support for evolution from God's Word, cow. Do you have any? I know you don't have any "scientific evidence" to validate evolution, so don't bother with that! Gotta ask this Doc. But do you have any to invalidate it?

Veritas -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 1:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I'm always ready to consider any support for evolution from God's Word, cow. Do you have any? I know you don't have any "scientific evidence" to validate evolution, so don't bother with that! It never ceases to amaze me that with all the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution, that anyone can pretend that there is no evidence.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 2:01:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AllForIsrael Gotta ask this Doc. But do you have any to invalidate it? It's hard to prove a negative, if you want to claim UCD is true, the burden of proof is on you. quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas It never ceases to amaze me that with all the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution, that anyone can pretend that there is no evidence. and all you had to do was give some evidence but you chose to make an empty statement instead. Typical evolutionist.

DanJames -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 2:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veritas quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I'm always ready to consider any support for evolution from God's Word, cow. Do you have any? I know you don't have any "scientific evidence" to validate evolution, so don't bother with that! It never ceases to amaze me that with all the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution, that anyone can pretend that there is no evidence. I agree, with all the mountains of data that have been interpreted from a uniformitarian and evolutionary perspective and forced down the throats of every person that ever goes through a public education system, it is difficult to "pretend" that there is no evidence.

unclemonkey -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 2:49:36 PM)
ORIGINAL:veritas quote: It never ceases to amaze me that with all the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution, that anyone can pretend that there is no evidence. No one denies that a wolf can �evolve� into terrier, but where is the evidence that a reptile can �evolve� into a mammal? There isn�t any. That dogma is accepted on pure faith. The reasoning for accepting goo to you evolution that you have decided to accept as valid evidence is nothing more than an anti-science �bait and switch� con.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 3:14:55 PM)
quote: But do you have any to invalidate it? Absolutely, AFI! There has never been one single report of a fruit fly evolving into anything but a deformed fruitfly despite 80 years and millions of generations of mutations. FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP. Is that enough invalidation for you, AFI?

cow451 -> RE: Earth Basics (3/12/2008 3:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark I'm always ready to consider any support for evolution from God's Word, cow. Do you have any? I know you don't have any "scientific evidence" to validate evolution, so don't bother with that! I'll go slowly to see if you can follow: Evolution ................ is .................. science ................. not ............................. religion. The ...................... Bible ....................... is ........................ a ...................... book ....................... of ....................... religion, ......................... not ....................... science. Creationism ....................... is ..................... bad ........................... religion.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>