Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    why are you bothering to quote on a subject that has nothing to do with this thread. I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.

    As I read the articles you gave the links to, it becomes obvious to me that science has reached the limit of measuring distances using the triangulation method. The angles are just too small to measure accurately. It now appears that science is using red-shift to gauge distance and distance means age. Maybe this is not an accurate method to take over from the triangulation method. What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?

    David
    What is wrong with you David? It was Mystykal who brought the subject up. I was merely correcting that BS article. Why don't you question the person who started it in the first place?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    That is your opinion. You cannot question people living at the time of Jesus (who were not primitive bronze-age people) and who wrote their testimony which we have on record.

    You talk from selective ignorance. I have reasons to believe God's word, but then there is no point discussing prophecy with you. Science makes hypotheses, which are often wrong. I agree, scientific theories are good in the sense of derived mathematical equations which can be reliably used, but that is not to say the theories are perfect and the most accurate.

    Fulfilled prophecy is proof. You ignore prophecy and believe none have been fulfilled, so end of discussion on this point.
    Hello David


    Jesus relied on the Old Testament (claiming it was his fathers word) which was written by primitive men as the foundation of what he promoted as the New Covenant. Jesus gave us nothing new, only a modified version of the rules and laws contained in the Old Covenant. Nothing in the Old Covenant is allowed to change according to Jesus, and anyone who breaks the least of its commandments will be called least in the kingdom.
    Matt.5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Even if some of the prophecies could be interpreted as being fulfilled, what about all the prophecies that are wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Certain things are not testable and so the scientific principle cannot be applied. Hypotheses remain where something is not testable.

    Evolution is not testable when scientists cannot produce anything like a dna molecule or prove the links that are being claimed. At best there are similarities and possibilities.
    Actually Rose, you brought into the subject "kinds" by when referring to organisms that evolved to the point where they could not interbreed among the species. I was confirming the point that we end up with "kinds". It is just a matter of how those "kinds" came to be; creation or evolution.
    Just because scientists cannot produce DNA has nothing to do with whether or not it can be tested. In order for something to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be able to be tested that is why any hypothesis for god fails because it cannot be tested.

    You are the one who introduced "kinds" into the discussion not me. Kinds is not a scientific term, whereas species is.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You have all the answers to those questions in the Bible. I understand, and I accept. You do not accept, which begs the question; did you ever understand?
    The Bible has no answers for the scientific mind, nor does it answer the question as to why the Biblegod chose to reveal himself only to primitive men. In the past when I was content to live in ignorance I could believe in god, but the moment I started asking the "why" questions my "god bubble" burst. It is really no different then when a child finds out that Santa Claus is not real.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    What if someone insults you as the mother of your children or makes insults about your children which you find offensive and hurtful? This has nothing to do with being "power hungry". This is a term you want to use as an excuse for not believing in God. God is all powerful (compared to humans) and it is just as well God is long-suffering and loving as well as being the righteous judge. The fact that we are here and we have the opportunity to see God has proved himself by the things that are made (not evolved), and that events are taking place in the nations as predicted by God, we can be assured of his promises in the future. This is not a message which can be accepted by the masses and that is a never-ending battle between those in the know and those without the knowledge.

    Alas, Rose, we are unable to reason about the Bible, because you are now blinkered to accept that it might be true. You are not averse to quoting words from it to suit your purpose. If only you could see the words of wisdom and "get understanding". It is inevitable that many of the subjects on this forum will have some connection to the Bible so most of the time, we are going to disagree and all we can do is express our opinions and leave it at that. This is not the place to have arguments, and as you say, and quote, we have to try and reason.

    Have you anything more to say about high altitude fossils?

    All the best

    David
    If someone insulted me or my children I know for a fact I would not go on a killing rampage like the Biblegod is portrayed as doing. If god doesn't like the way humans turned out why did he create them in the first place?

    As I have said many times before, I believe the Bible is a book written solely from the minds of men and as such contains many words of wisdom along with many words of ignorance.

    Nothing other than what I have said comes to mind at the moment concerning high altitude fossils.

    Take care
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    What is wrong with you David? It was Mystykal who brought the subject up. I was merely correcting that BS article. Why don't you question the person who started it in the first place?
    So why have you not answered my question in the post you are responding to. There is no point discussing anything with you as you are not doing what you say you do. Here is my question again. You will not I read the articles you gave links to.

    What else besides red shift can be used to determine distance or age?
    Regards
    David

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    665
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67



    So why have you not answered my question in the post you are responding to. There is no point discussing anything with you as you are not doing what you say you do. Here is my question again. You will not I read the articles you gave links to.

    Earth to David. Did this slip your mind?
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.
    So which is it? Do you want to stay on topic or start another thread?
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,851
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    That theory is far from being proven,
    Ha! You crack me up every time you say that because your theory that the Bible is God's Word has no evidence of any kind, whereas scientific theories are based on demonstrable evidence.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    East of West!
    Posts
    411

    Not So Fast!...

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Mystykal,


    Why are you posting that BS again? Arp's theories have been tested and there is no evidence for his claims. That website you posted is committed to pseudoscience. Arp never falsified the Big Bang theory. That is something crackpot creationist have claimed. And you obviously believe the Bs because I have debunked your claims before and here you are again posting that junk. It really inspires confidence in a creator when creationists have to lie about their arguments. And they are lying about Arp's claims because the TRUTH is out there. It's pretty funny you think the Big Bang model has been proven wrong by Arp.

    You can read what happens when REAL science is explored. Theories with no evidence are then discarded.
    http://scientopia.org/blogs/galactic...sar-redshifts/


    Here is the conclusion for Arps theory. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

    We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1+z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp#Critics

    "... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]
    ==============
    Hi L67:

    I had a hell of a time trying to find this post! I was gone for a few days...
    Please try and keep an open mind to the views I am placing in front of you. I do not think that they have been discredited. Quite the opposite! The problem is on of concrete facts. The issues of perspective have to do with the different ways models in science are created in the first place.....

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633...41T

    Those who possess even a modest familiarity with Halton Arp's arguments should be highly dubious of the analysis presented on this page. The following statement does not fully address the possible causes for the *intrinsic* redshift, whether it's an accurate representation of Arp's claims, or not. And that means that this analysis should be rejected as an incomplete rebuttal for the claim of intrinsic redshift:

    "Astronomy has long had a handful of fringe scientists who argue that at least some of the redshifts we see are non-cosmological in origin. In particular, Halton Arp, most famous for a catalog of galaxies with disturbed morphologies (as a result of interactions), argues that quasars aren't really cosmologically distant objects at all, but are rather objects ejected from nearby galaxies, SHOWING THEIR REDSHIFTS AS THE RESULT OF AN EXTREME DOPPLER SHIFT DUE TO THEIR HIGH EJECTION VELOCITIES."

    To my knowledge, the intrinsic component to the observed raw redshift is *quantized*. Thus, how does it even make any sense that ejection velocities would be the inferred cause? What causes the quantization? What we are seeing here, by necessity, is a microscopic process playing out in a macroscopic manner.

    There is arguably a large set of explanations which could be tapped into to explain this observation of quantized inherent redshifts. Ejection velocity is hardly one of the more convincing inferences.

    One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls. This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest". It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:

    "Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller. If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ... it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."

    The point here is that the analysis presented on this page does not appear to reflect the full argument which Arp and others are making. So, it appears to me that you are (intentionally or not) confusing people.

    One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom. Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress. In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress. Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s).

    So, how could we reconcile this? One way -- and I'm just throwing this out there as an example -- would be to realize that the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known. So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).

    The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons. Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.

    There are almost surely other inferences which could explain the full set of observations. But, the trick is in getting people to leave their comfortability zone of the gravitational framework sufficient to postulate plasma physics explanations. Whatever the proposed explanation is, it needs to be proposed within a plasma universe framework. This is where most conventional thinkers go wrong: They fail to absorb the plasma universe materials sufficient to even make such propositions.

    It always amuses me when people point to a statistical analysis in order to prove that somebody else's theory is wrong. Yes, it is unfortunately common today, but there exists a very large set of misconceptions or dirty tricks which can bias the results to accommodate any pre-existing worldview. The human mind oftentimes looks for shortcuts to avoiding uncertainty. We often times want to believe *something*, and it might as well be that which we've been already taught.

    Furthermore, many of the bridges that Arp points to are startlingly apparent to the human eye, once the proper spectra are included. That you decide to focus upon the statistics instead of the stronger bridge evidence, I think speaks to your desire to fight the battle on terms which the general public cannot understand. You are essentially winnowing down the set of people who can argue against you.
    An arguably far better way to test Arp's theory would be to look for "quantum graininess" in particle mass increases within particle acceleration experiments. But, I suspect that your intentions do not so much align with curiosity as they do with an attempt to justify your current belief system. So, I don't expect that you would follow up on such a suggestion, or even think anything of it if the hunch was confirmed. This is what happens when physicists are trained in just one theory. It is not so much a product of science, as it is human psychology. Teaching a student one theory suggests memorization. Critical thinking -- which results from a process of comparing and contrasting -- does not truly begin until the student is taught two competing sets of ideas.

    This is consistent with the scientific model making approach.

    Namaste,

    Mystykal
    Last edited by Mystykal; 09-23-2013 at 10:42 PM.
    Mystykal

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Rose
    As you have said you have nothing else to say about high altitude fossils, I guess we have said all we can say on the matter. I shall deal with any questions you have asked in this post and add a final comment on what you have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Hello David


    Jesus relied on the Old Testament (claiming it was his fathers word) which was written by primitive men as the foundation of what he promoted as the New Covenant. Jesus gave us nothing new, only a modified version of the rules and laws contained in the Old Covenant. Nothing in the Old Covenant is allowed to change according to Jesus, and anyone who breaks the least of its commandments will be called least in the kingdom.
    Matt.5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    If you asked Jesus; who wrote the their ancient scriptures, he would not say the people were primitive. Not so advanced technology-wise, but every bit as intelligent as you and me. In that respect, man has not advanced in 6,000 years. The rules did not require modifying because they were already perfect. Jesus only summed up the the commandments into two commandments. I do not know what you are trying to prove by that last quote. We are not to add or take away from God's instructions. These are the basic rules for living and if everyone kept the ten commandments, we would have no problems in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Even if some of the prophecies could be interpreted as being fulfilled, what about all the prophecies that are wrong?
    What prophecies are wrong? You should try harder to understand the prophecies that have been fulfilled and the ones to be completed. There are prophecies to be fulfilled in the future despite what Preterists say. If you just go along blindly to everything that supports your reason for denying God, then you will not listen to reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Just because scientists cannot produce DNA has nothing to do with whether or not it can be tested. In order for something to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be able to be tested that is why any hypothesis for god fails because it cannot be tested.
    Prophecy is proving God more than you care to admit. Scientific hypotheses once tested and found to work, become theories. Scientists are tinkering with DNA and maybe some predictions are possible. I can play with Leggo and produce things that I know will fit together. Scientists are a long way off making predictions as to the way DNA will change within their life time and cannot predict the way evolution would go since there is no design or predicted path to evolution that is testable. Please come up with some solid evidence to support your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    You are the one who introduced "kinds" into the discussion not me. Kinds is not a scientific term, whereas species is.
    I have already explained that what you say is species that cannot any longer interbreed have become kinds. Kinds cannot interbreed. You are disguising kinds because you do not like the word because of its association with creation. A spade is a spade and that is what a kind is, species that cannot interbreed with any other species than itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    The Bible has no answers for the scientific mind, nor does it answer the question as to why the Biblegod chose to reveal himself only to primitive men. In the past when I was content to live in ignorance I could believe in god, but the moment I started asking the "why" questions my "god bubble" burst. It is really no different then when a child finds out that Santa Claus is not real.
    A child can find God in place of Santa Claus and you would rather children find out nothing about God who offers eternal life. You say primitive man as though they were of lesser intelligence. I think you should stop using that term. Of course you will not because it suits your purpose to mislead other into believing there is no God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    If someone insulted me or my children I know for a fact I would not go on a killing rampage like the Biblegod is portrayed as doing. If god doesn't like the way humans turned out why did he create them in the first place?
    God like the potter knows that there will be a percentage of rejects. God is interested in the pots that are acceptable. Reprobates are noting in God's sight. Reprobates would kill your children and you would not want to take revenge. Pull the other leg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    As I have said many times before, I believe the Bible is a book written solely from the minds of men and as such contains many words of wisdom along with many words of ignorance.
    Wise words indicate intelligence. Primitive man is a misnomer. When we are talking about the last 6,000 years there were intelligent minds that built the Pyramids and things we still cannot explain fully today. The Bible contains the wisdom of God that is far superior to man's wisdom. Unless you have what I call your spiritual spectacles or spiritual filters, you will not recognize the wisdom that runs throughout the whole of the Bible uniting its writings. That is why harmony and consistence can be found in its writings, but like the parables, if you do not search out the meaning, you will not see what the spiritual message is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Nothing other than what I have said comes to mind at the moment concerning high altitude fossils.
    I think a comparison can be done to compare fossils found at various heights around the world. Fossils are found all over the world. Whether at one time or over a long period of time, a catastrophe took place in all parts of the world. What appears like separate events could be one long event. You do not know how God could cause things to happen faster than you think possible. The resulting chaos of a world-wide Tsumani would not leave uniform traces.

    All the best

    David
    Last edited by David M; 09-25-2013 at 03:53 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Earth to David. Did this slip your mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I would like to ask you a question and this can be started in another thread and not continued here.
    So which is it? Do you want to stay on topic or start another thread?
    I will leave that to you. Just let me know what you intend to do so I know the reason you are not answering here. Do you intend to answer and when? That is all I need to know.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •