God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

a reply to: edmc^2

Just because a scientist said it, does not mean it is a central tenant of science. IF you've read any of his theories, you will know despite him saying that, it was NOT simple. You needed to be able to follow the logic, the mathematics, etc

Science has one job, and that is explainin, and exploring the physical and natural world.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Just because a scientist said it, does not mean it is a central tenant of science. IF you've read any of his theories, you will know despite him saying that, it was NOT simple. You needed to be able to follow the logic, the mathematics, etc

Science has one job, and that is explainin, and exploring the physical and natural world.

and make things simple.

lol!

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Just because a scientist said it, does not mean it is a central tenant of science. IF you've read any of his theories, you will know despite him saying that, it was NOT simple. You needed to be able to follow the logic, the mathematics, etc

Science has one job, and that is explainin, and exploring the physical and natural world.

and make things simple.

lol!

Simple.

Not dumbed down.

Big difference.

ETA: Example.

Dumbed down science - science says the sky is blue.

Simpler science - the sky appears blue because of the way light gets defused in the atmosphere.

a reply to: edmc^2

As pointed out. Not dumbed down. I've seen High School Chemistry (my area of expertise, along with Bioinformatics (not taught at highschool)) dumbed down. Then the little buggers get to University and fall apart. You can't dumb down a wet science. Simplify? Perhaps. OR expect people to grow a set, and work to understand it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

As pointed out. Not dumbed down. I've seen High School Chemistry (my area of expertise, along with Bioinformatics (not taught at highschool)) dumbed down. Then the little buggers get to University and fall apart. You can't dumb down a wet science. Simplify? Perhaps. OR expect people to grow a set, and work to understand it.

Of course. But I'm not dumbing down anything here. I'm merely simplifying things so that those who have difficulty understanding the words/phrase can grasp the meaning of it.

Far be it to be dumbing it down.

Just like E =mc2 means the transformation of energy into matter and matter into energy, "hangs upon nothing" simply means 'floating in space' - whatever it is.

ciao.

next thread coming soon.

a reply to: edmc^2

You can't dumb down that which you do not understand. You have amply demonstrated that you don't get this area.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You can't dumb down that which you do not understand. You have amply demonstrated that you don't get this area.

I beg to differ. I fully understand this subject matter. I demonstrated it clearly back up by scientific facts that indeed the earth as the scripture say "hangs upon nothing" or simply put floating in space. What's so hard to understand?

a reply to: 5StarOracle


That's fine. I'm not saying the bible isn't a cool collection of different stories and writings. I enjoy reading it too sometimes for various reasons.

I think there are some interesting things that can be taken from it too. Clearly it is a collection of knowledge that has been passed down for a reason. However the OT is really a book for Jews. It's all about them and for them. The NT carries on in some ways like a Bible part 2 but also as an independent book itself.

Anyway, I just want to clear up that it's not that I think the bible is useless or anything like that. It is what it is and if you get something out of it then that's a good thing. There are many other Religious books and writings that are good too. I suggest reading them all if you're interested in that kind of thing.

As far as the science goes I'd say that it contains probably their best ideas at the time in that area but it's mostly a moral guide. There wasn't even something known as Science like we know it today. But they did have their own version of it.

a reply to: edmc^2

Hangs upon nothing does not mean floating in space. No mention of floating or space. Again you assign meaning arbitrarily as usual. Let's not forget it's not floating either. It's flying at hyperspeeds in a controlled orbit. Hanging doesn't even begin to describe the process.

I look forward to your next thread it should be just as entertaining and false as the rest and more mental gymnastics of you assigning meaning when it's no there.

a reply to: edmc^2

Actually you've demonstrated that you have no clue. The earth is not floating or hanging. Something you can't grasp. So simple but your bias prevents you from seeing.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

Hangs upon nothing does not mean floating in space. No mention of floating or space. Again you assign meaning arbitrarily as usual. Let's not forget it's not floating either. It's flying at hyperspeeds in a controlled orbit. Hanging doesn't even begin to describe the process.

I look forward to your next thread it should be just as entertaining and false as the rest and more mental gymnastics of you assigning meaning when it's no there.

I have no disagreement with the following statements of yours:

It's flying at hyperspeeds in a controlled orbit

It's also a fact that orbits around the sun and that it rotates at its axis.

But it's also a fact that nothing solid is holding as it "flies at hyperspeed" in space. Hence, in layman's term, it's floating in space.

So it's a matter of degree how things are explained.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

Actually you've demonstrated that you have no clue. The earth is not floating or hanging. Something you can't grasp. So simple but your bias prevents you from seeing.

One simple question will put this to rest - is there something SOLID - VISIBLE holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

a reply to: edmc^2

Well since you seem to think layman's terms are good enough for your position why not for me. Either way. Hanging does not imply orbiting. Case closed.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

Well since you seem to think layman's terms are good enough for your position why not for me. Either way. Hanging does not imply orbiting. Case closed.

So what's the answer since you know this stuff well.

One simple question will put this to rest - is there something SOLID - VISIBLE - holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

a reply to: edmc^2

It matters not whether something is holding the earth. It matters that you claim the writer of job received knowledge from the creator of the universe but he didn't know the earth was orbiting at fast speeds.

It matters that the writer of ecclesiastes Saud the earth will never move but yet it does.

It matters that the writer of genesis claimed the earth was formed before there was light and it's false.

It matters that the writer of genesis claims that sea creatures were not the first living things on earth and that is false.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

It matters not whether something is holding the earth. It matters that you claim the writer of job received knowledge from the creator of the universe but he didn't know the earth was orbiting at fast speeds.

It matters that the writer of ecclesiastes Saud the earth will never move but yet it does.

It matters that the writer of genesis claimed the earth was formed before there was light and it's false.

It matters that the writer of genesis claims that sea creatures were not the first living things on earth and that is false.

Huh? You're sidestepping a very simple question?

What gives?

So - is there something SOLID - VISIBLE - holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

It matters not whether something is holding the earth. It matters that you claim the writer of job received knowledge from the creator of the universe but he didn't know the earth was orbiting at fast speeds.

It matters that the writer of ecclesiastes Saud the earth will never move but yet it does.

It matters that the writer of genesis claimed the earth was formed before there was light and it's false.

It matters that the writer of genesis claims that sea creatures were not the first living things on earth and that is false.

Huh? You're sidestepping a very simple question?

What gives?

So - is there something SOLID - VISIBLE - holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

Yes. It sits on top of a Christmas tree and rotates by a motor plugged into the sun.

OMG! PROOF God did it!!!!

a reply to: edmc^2

As I said I'm done with your one scripture from Job. You be sidestepped dozens of other scriptures that counter your point. One even a direct contradiction to job. I'm not playing your little childish game. The earth doesn't hang it orbits. There's a big difference. Your point is moot.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

As I said I'm done with your one scripture from Job. You be sidestepped dozens of other scriptures that counter your point. One even a direct contradiction to job. I'm not playing your little childish game. The earth doesn't hang it orbits. There's a big difference. Your point is moot.

Still can't answer my very simple question:

is there something SOLID - VISIBLE - holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

As I said I'm done with your one scripture from Job. You be sidestepped dozens of other scriptures that counter your point. One even a direct contradiction to job. I'm not playing your little childish game. The earth doesn't hang it orbits. There's a big difference. Your point is moot.

Still can't answer my very simple question:

is there something SOLID - VISIBLE - holding the earth as it orbits the sun in space?

The spaghetti monsters tentacles.

OMG! PROOF the spaghetti monster did it!!!!