Spirituality
04 Feb 15
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by lemon limeYes I do. Is that relevant to the discussion? What is your point?
Uh huh... and I assumed you were smart enough to also know this.
When total eclipses do happen to completely cover up the sun it gives us the opportunity to check some things out we otherwise couldn't... such as being able to prove gravitational lensing, or observe more detail in the corona.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point being, I don't feel the need to immediately jump in and point out your mistakes...
Yes I do. Is that relevant to the discussion? What is your point?
Well, maybe this time I will. You said "Yes I do"... yes you do what? What does that mean? I didn't say anything about what you do... so what does that mean? Do what?
There, see how annoying that is? I knew what you meant, but I acted like a horses ass and pretended to not know what you meant in order to try making you look like a fool.
So what do you think? Did you enjoy that?
Originally posted by lemon limeWhy do you assume that is what I am doing? Have you considered the possibility that it was you that jumped to the wrong conclusion?
There, see how annoying that is? I knew what you meant, but I acted like a horses ass and pretended to not know what you meant in order to try making you look like a fool.
So what do you think? Did you enjoy that?
Go back and read through the thread again and maybe you will see it in a new light.
I am not deliberately annoying, nor did I simply jump on your mistakes for no reason.
I honestly do want to know why you introduced the size of the moon to this discussion, and why you think the usefulness of eclipses to science is relevant to the discussion. And since you seem determined not to explain, I am left with no choice but to start guessing.
07 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not deliberately annoying
Why do you assume that is what I am doing? Have you considered the possibility that it was you that jumped to the wrong conclusion?
Go back and read through the thread again and maybe you will see it in a new light.
I am not deliberately annoying, nor did I simply jump on your mistakes for no reason.
I honestly do want to know why you introduced the s ...[text shortened]... n. And since you seem determined not to explain, I am left with no choice but to start guessing.
I didn't think it was deliberate. And there are others here I do not believe are being deliberately annoying. The ones who are deliberately annoying are stinkers who only seem to enjoy stirring up bees nests.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneYou keep saying stuff like this, but you have not provided any examples of any
No. I abandon the scientific method in cases where it just does not work.
......
And that's why both you and Pat Novak get it wrong. Neither of you entertains the
possibility of there being a branch or branches of knowledge where science does not
apply.
branches of knowledge where science not only doesn't work, but something else
does.
I know of none, and there is no known alternative that could replace science.
Everything we know we know because of science.
We know nothing because of faith.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt was in response to my post in which I wrote the following:
In that case, I apologize for being unintentionally annoying. I would still be interested in knowing why you brought up the moon in the first place if you are willing to tell me.
The moon does not appear to be spinning because no one at any location of the earth ever sees the other side of the moon. However, the moon must turn in exact sync one rotation as it goes around the earth to keep the same side always pointing toward the earth.
Notice what I said about the moon must turn one rotation in exact sync to keep the same side of the moon always pointing toward earth.
Then besides that apparent oddity, lemon lime made his statement about the fact that the moon also seems to be the exact size to cause eclipses. So I believe the mystery of the moon comment is solved. 😏
08 Feb 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't believe Suzianne would lie about something like this. She just believes that theistic evolution reconciles the controversy between evolution and creation. There are many Bible teachers that present this view and she apparently accepts this as the simplest solution.
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"And that is why you fail."
You keep saying stuff like this, but you have not provided any examples of any branches of knowledge where science not only doesn't work, but something else does.
I know of none, and there is no known alternative that could replace science.
Everything we know we know because of science.
We know nothing because of faith.
"We"? What about "I"? (I ask, even though the answer seems obvious.)
08 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience does not work in providing the answer to the supernatural existence of life. Science does not work in providing the answer to the existence of something rather than nothing. Science does not work in proving or disproving the existence of God. Science does not work in proving the age of the universe or the earth. Science does not work in dating all rocks or fossils on the earth. Science does not work in providing the purpose of man's existence. Those answers are a part of speculation, philosophy, and religion. 😏
You keep saying stuff like this, but you have not provided any examples of any
branches of knowledge where science not only doesn't work, but something else
does.
I know of none, and there is no known alternative that could replace science.
Everything we know we know because of science.
We know nothing because of faith.