False Science Exposed

Originally posted by RJHinds
When did I say the earth was the center of the universe? It may be, but I don't know.

What does 1 Chronicles 16:30 mean to you?

You are like sonhouse, who reads the Bible and gets a meaning out of it only drawn from standard definitions of the words involved. Like him, you seem able to get a translation, but not a feeling for what it means. I've already said this to you once before. I say God is more concerned with what Scripture means, not what it says.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You are like sonhouse, who reads the Bible and gets a meaning out of it only drawn from standard definitions of the words involved. Like him, you seem able to get a translation, but not a feeling for what it means. I've already said this to you once before. I say God is more concerned with what Scripture means, not what it says.

Is sonhouse one of the community members you were referring to when you called them "pinheads". The reason I ask is because earlier today you made a rather long self-congratulatory post on the "Moses was a terrorist" thread where you cast yourself as come sort of advocate of "respect" for people with different views from you. So who are these "pinheads" you disagree with who you were talking about on the science v theism thread?

Originally posted by FMF
Is sonhouse one of the community members you were referring to when you called them "pinheads". The reason I ask is because earlier today you made a rather long self-congratulatory post on the "Moses was a terrorist" thread where you cast yourself as come sort of advocate of "respect" for people with different views from you. So who are these "pinheads" you disagree with who you were talking about on the science v theism thread?

I think she meant me. I would put money on it in fact.

Based on the fact that I am one of those people who advocate for not
believing anything at all on faith and that faith cannot ever be a valid
for of belief formation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think she meant me. I would put money on it in fact.

Based on the fact that I am one of those people who advocate for not
believing anything at all on faith and that faith cannot ever be a valid
for of belief formation.

Be that as it may, I am more interested in the behaviour of Christians who disagree with each other over the issue of science and "creation", hence my thread about it the other day. Her "pinheads" insult directed at people she disagrees with and disrespects was made there.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh the pathos.

... as well as the utter bathos ["ludicrous descent from the exalted or lofty to the commonplace"] into which the human race has been dropped since Adam's voluntary disobedience to one simple volitional test commandment in the Garden as part of God's grace plan to resolve the prehistoric angelic conflict on our behalf. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bathos

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know better than this. Your argument with me (this one, anyways) is pure fail.

Who ever said I have no recourse to science? I believe in evolution and the 4.5 billion year old history of earth. I've said many times that science has its place.

So what exactly are you on about, again?

I have addressed this many times but this is one of the best answers I've seen on this so I am reposting it here.

PatNovak http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=159473&page=8#post_3235991

I want to address the topic of what makes someone pro- or anti-science. Being pro-science does not mean that one agrees with the conclusions of science, but instead means that one agrees with the way science approaches problems. If one person believes the Earth is a few thousand years old because of primarily religious reasons, and another person believes the earth is a few billion years old for primarily religious reasons, then both of those individuals are equally anti-science, even though the second person’s conclusion matches scientific consensus.

In another post, you said, “… there can be no 'young earth creation' for, if proved, this would absolutely prove a divine hand was responsible. Creation necessarily had to have taken billions of years in order to appear as unguided, natural progression.” This makes it clear that you have come to your conclusion about the Earth's formation through religious reasons, and this makes you just as anti-science as a YEC on this issue, even if your position coincides with scientific consensus.

When a person says that faith is a prerequisite to find evidence of god (as you have indicated elsewhere in this thread), they are declaring that you must accept the conclusion of a hypothesis as proven to be true before you can investigate the hypothesis. This way of thinking is the opposite of the scientific method. People who advocate this way of thinking are declaring themselves to be anti-science, and it makes no difference how often their conclusions coincide with scientific consensus.

You abandon science where it suits you, unlike RJHinds [for example] who just abandons science period.

But you still abandon science [logic, reason, rationality, ect] the moment your religion/faith comes a knocking.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is rather long and drwan out. I can't really say much about the astronomy aspect of the controversy, but practically, I don't see why the earth has to be spinning like a top. It certainly doesn't look or feel like it is and there appears to be no solid evidence that I understand that proves it.

Well, I watched the whole thing today. The first one that is, the second one runs for nearly 3 hours so I won't bother with that one. Anywho... here is my not so kind review of that (for lack of a better word) strange video.

There's plenty of evidence we can see in the sky to at least confirm the earths axis tilting at a consistent angle. One piece of visible evidence for this is how the sun appears to arc across the sky. The position of that arc changes throughout the year, I noticed that when I was a little kid. I didn't know why it did that, but after a few years I could see the arc consistently changing back and forth throughout a yearly cycle... this was before I learned anything about cosmology in grade school. I also assumed earth is closer to the sun during the summer, and was intrigued to learn earth is actually a bit further away. Earth is a few million miles further from the sun during the summer (for those of living in the Northern Hemisphere) than in the winter, and the reason for this is because of how the earth is tilted along its axis in relation to the path the earth takes around the sun. Because of the tilt, we (northern hemisphere) will experience more direct sunlight... tilting toward or away from the sun makes a big difference, so distance (from the sun) is not much of a factor in determining seasonal differences.

One of the mistakes I noticed in that video is assuming distant stars should appear to move across the sky at different rates of speed. It's one thing to see a mountain range a few miles away appearing to change position slower than closer objects, and another to assume we are able to perceive the same difference with stars that are many hundreds of light years away. It's because of this that I doubt the earths axis is exactly lined up with Polaris, even though it might appear that way. So using a laser sighting on a rifle to illustrate a changing position is imo worse than nonsense, because it demonstrates intellectual laziness... and even a working knowledge of physics is no match for sheer intellectual laziness. The author of that video doesn't appear to realize that what he thinks he is seeing is more of an optical illusion than anything else.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that video was on the up and up, or if it was a parody put together by people wishing to mock Christians. I think it was (unfortunately) put together by people who need to learn more about the subject before attempting something like this, because it defeats its own purpose and gives critics of Christianity something to hoot about.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is rather long and drwan out. I can't really say much about the astronomy aspect of the controversy, but practically, I don't see why the earth has to be spinning like a top. It certainly doesn't look or feel like it is and there appears to be no solid evidence that I understand that proves it.

I don't see why the earth has to be spinning like a top. It certainly doesn't look or feel like it is...

It's a good thing that it does spin... can you imagine what the weather might be like if it didn't?

When I was 12 years old my parents took me to the Space Needle in Seattle Washington. We went to the restaurant at the top of the Needle, and someone there told us it rotates once every hour. I wasn't aware of any motion, and the only evidence I could see we were moving was that the scenery outside appeared to change... but it changed so slowly I wasn't aware (visually) of that motion. I felt no motion, and saw no motion... but I was aware of how the scenery outside appeared to slowly change.

I hated traveling when I was kid, so making little observations like this helped to pass the time... until I got home and could do kid stuff again.😀

Originally posted by lemon lime
Well, I watched the whole thing today. The first one that is, the second one runs for nearly 3 hours so I won't bother with that one. Anywho... here is my not so kind review of that (for lack of a better word) strange video.

There's plenty of evidence we can see in the sky to at least confirm the earths axis tilting at a consistent angle. One pi ...[text shortened]... s, because it defeats its own purpose and gives critics of Christianity something to hoot about.

You haven't got the details quite right, but for someone without a background
in astronomy or physics it's not a bad start.

Cosmology btw is a more narrow field than Astronomy and is focused on how
the universe works and how it came to exist and deals with things like the big
bang theory and string theory and other proposed grand unified theories.

Astronomy is simply the study of stuff out their in space, and is a field where
amateurs can still make contributions and make discoveries which is pretty cool.

You are quite right that the Earth's orbit, like all the other planets/moons/asteroids/ect,
is elliptical which means that the distance between the Earth and the sun varies [slightly]
over the year as we go around the orbit. The time of year at which the Earth is closest
to the Sun changes [very slowly] with time and in fact we passed closest approach for
this year on 4th January. [it's usually around the 3rd/4th]

The seasons are due to the axial tilt which as you correctly observed causes the
arc, the sun moves across the sky in, to rise and fall over the year.

http://www.space.com/3304-earth-closest-sun-dead-winter.html

If you are interested [at all] in astronomy, or just like cool astronomy pics, check out
Phill Plaits Bad Astronomy blog on slate.com. He loves explaining stuff like this way
better than I can as well as posting cool astronomy stuff [and debunking myths and
rumours, like the freak-outs that happen in the media or on facebook every time a new
asteroid is found].

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

Originally posted by FMF
Be that as it may, I am more interested in the behaviour of Christians who disagree with each other over the issue of science and "creation", hence my thread about it the other day. Her "pinheads" insult directed at people she disagrees with and disrespects was made there.

So why are you asking about it here, at this thread?

And don't you think it would be odd if people in any kind of group were in 100% agreement about everything? The only places you can expect to see absolute and complete agreement are in tyrannies, where at the very least lip service must be given or there will be dire consequences.

You seem to assume anything you say (whether it's on topic or not) deserves to be given our undivided attention... why is that?

Originally posted by lemon lime
So why are you asking about it here, at this thread?

Same topic. Being discussed at the same time. More or less the same people. In the same day Suzianne both called for respect for disagreement and called people she disagrees with "pinheads". The question is totally appropriate here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You seem to assume anything you say (whether it's on topic or not) deserves to be given our undivided attention... why is that?

You are free to give my posts whatever attention you want.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And don't you think it would be odd if people in any kind of group were in 100% agreement about everything?

People 100% agreement about everything? I have not mentioned anything of the sort. I am asking Suzianne about her calling people she disagrees with "pinheads". Is RJHinds one of these so-called "pinheads"? Are you? Suzianne was keen to brand persons who will remain nameless apparently. Whether or not people are "100% agreement about everything" is a notion you have introduced, not me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You haven't got the details quite right, but for someone without a background
in astronomy or physics it's not a bad start.

Cosmology btw is a more narrow field than Astronomy and is focused on how
the universe works and how it came to exist and deals with things like the big
bang theory and string theory and other proposed grand unified theorie ...[text shortened]... facebook every time a new
asteroid is found].

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

You haven't got the details quite right...

Details about what? The orbit and tilt of the earth, or what I said about an appearance of motion?

I usually try to keep explanations as brief as possible, and not smother my messages with too many details. For example, I assumed everyone would know (or at least guess) that I was talking about an elliptical orbit without having to say so.

I also didn't mention how the moon helps in keeping the tilt of the earths axis at a constant 23.5 degrees, because it wasn't necessary for the purpose this discussion. I think it's better just to say what needs to be said, and leave anything else for some other post or topic.

I do like looking at astronomy pics. I didn't know this until a few weeks ago, but those pics have been colored in to make them easier to look at... it's easier to see distinctions and frankly makes the pics more appealing to look at. The actual pics (before they're colored in) are black and white.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You are like sonhouse, who reads the Bible and gets a meaning out of it only drawn from standard definitions of the words involved. Like him, you seem able to get a translation, but not a feeling for what it means. I've already said this to you once before. I say God is more concerned with what Scripture means, not what it says.

That's a real low blow. I might be old like sonhouse, but when it comes to trying to get the true meaning from scripture, we are far apart. Please say you didn't really mean it.