Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The most astounding fact!

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
No force holds the Earth in space. That was realized by Newton a while back. It certainly is not a space age idea as claimed by a creationist. Forces do act on the Earth. Gravity controls how the universe is structured.

The Earth and our solar system are also recent compared to the universe. The solar system is some 4.6By old. It was formed well after the big bang. To claim that genesis refers to the big bang because the universe has a start is flimsy at best. The bible doesn't even get the order of creation right.

The la-la-la-la from the preceding photo identifies the creationist attitude perfectly.




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You're making statements you don't back up with objective evidence and facts...you are essentially preaching. So you can't really complain about people not taking your posts seriously



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You're making statements you don't back up with objective evidence and facts...you are essentially preaching. So you can't really complain about people not taking your posts seriously




Of course there's objective evidence. Problem is people try to ignore the truth and can't give a straight answer.

Here let me ask you the question that I posited to someone here.

Can you please tell me if Job 26:7 which states poetically that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing" contradicts our scientific knowledge? That is, that the earth is being held in place in outer space by an invisible force - we now know as gravity?

So as not to make things too difficult to understand and be accused of changing the topic - let me rephrase my q:

Can you please tell me if there's ANY VISIBLE means to support the earth in outer space as it orbits the sun in the solar system?

If this it no yet clear, let me rephrase again:

Can any of the brightest scientists in the world show us that the earth has a visible means of support while it orbits the sun in outer space?

If none, will it be correct then for a layperson to say that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing"?

Please let me know if my question needs further clarification or explanation and I will attempt to explain it again.

tc.

ps.

if "held", "hold" or "holding in place" is not the correct words, then I will use "keeping in place".

If these words are not clear enough to describe the earth in outer space, then sorry to say this, but it shows total ignorance on the person reading a very simple question. And I can't do nothing about it.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Jameela
Theory is not fact


Gravity is a theory. Do you doubt that it exists?



As a matter of fact:

Shocking Truth: Gravity Really Does Not Exist.
Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:14
______beforeitsnews/story/1895/351/Shocking_Truth:_Gravity_Really_Does_Not_Exist..html


The most astounding fact is, truth cannot be discovered. It's realized.
These scientists....with their degrees and awards won't get to that Brass Ring of Knowledge any sooner than you or I will.

As the saying goes in the physics' community: If a grade-schooler can't understand then, it's wrong.

Life isn't this hard.
We just forgotten what the truths are.
And it won't come from a lab-coat clad scientist. It'll come from deep within.
So stop looking and start remembering.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


And yet you type your posts an a computer that wouldn't exist without science



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Can you please tell me if Job 26:7 which states poetically that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing" contradicts our scientific knowledge? That is, that the earth is being held in place in outer space by an invisible force - we now know as gravity?

That's false. The Earth is not hanging in place. Such ideas are wrong. Gravity does not hang the Earth in place. Gravity causes the Earth to move.


Can you please tell me if there's ANY VISIBLE means to support the earth in outer space as it orbits the sun in the solar system?

No objects are supported in outer space. They do not need to be. To mix support and orbit shows a lack of understanding of the physics involved.


If none, will it be correct then for a layperson to say that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing"?

Your verse from the bible suggests god is doing something that does not happen.


Please let me know if my question needs further clarification or explanation and I will attempt to explain it again.

Your question is wrong to start with. You ask for an answer to a false premise.


if "held", "hold" or "holding in place" is not the correct words, then I will use "keeping in place".

Using all sorts of different words with different meanings simply shows that you want to misrepresent the situation.


If these words are not clear enough to describe the earth in outer space, then sorry to say this, but it shows total ignorance on the person reading a very simple question. And I can't do nothing about it.

You could learn some physics.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You're making statements you don't back up with objective evidence and facts...you are essentially preaching. So you can't really complain about people not taking your posts seriously




Of course there's objective evidence. Problem is people try to ignore the truth and can't give a straight answer.

Here let me ask you the question that I posited to someone here.

Can you please tell me if Job 26:7 which states poetically that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing" contradicts our scientific knowledge? That is, that the earth is being held in place in outer space by an invisible force - we now know as gravity?

So as not to make things too difficult to understand and be accused of changing the topic - let me rephrase my q:

Can you please tell me if there's ANY VISIBLE means to support the earth in outer space as it orbits the sun in the solar system?

If this it no yet clear, let me rephrase again:

Can any of the brightest scientists in the world show us that the earth has a visible means of support while it orbits the sun in outer space?

If none, will it be correct then for a layperson to say that the "earth...is hanging upon nothing"?

Please let me know if my question needs further clarification or explanation and I will attempt to explain it again.

tc.

ps.

if "held", "hold" or "holding in place" is not the correct words, then I will use "keeping in place".

If these words are not clear enough to describe the earth in outer space, then sorry to say this, but it shows total ignorance on the person reading a very simple question. And I can't do nothing about it.



So what say you Mr. XYZ?

stereo already gave his/her non-answer reply - do you agree with it?

tc



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In many of the creationist lectures I attend the speaker purposely misrepresents the issues.

Some of those clowns might pretend that gravity was unknown to ancient man. Not at all. They were aware of the weight of objects and moving objects by boat or building a home. They were aware of gravity just as we are today.

These creationist lecture clowns might even try to pretend that Newton discovered gravity. No. Archimedes was aware of gravity and the force of buoyancy. The ancient Greeks were aware of forces and had an idea called impetus that has long since been dropped.

So what did Newton do? Did he discover gravity? No. His realization was that gravity was a known force that also structured the solar system.

So now a verse from Job is being misrepresented as a reference to gravity. On top of that is the silly misrepresentation that gravity was discovered in the space age.

These are the sorts of "tricks" pulled by bad magicians we all laugh at for their incompetence.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
so E PLURIBUS UNUM

or vicey versa pretty much sums up everything?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm sorry.

That reply to your thread was just mean and uncalled for.

I'm just so sick of the 'battle' attitude when it comes to Creationism vs Darwinism when both are correct in their own ways. I suppose it comes down to perspective, how one views 'God & Evolution'.

That's why I try and stay out of this subject now, more that ever. It just seems it's the same argument over and over.

Anyway. I'm sorry for jumping down your throat uncalled for.
Please accept my apology..

Sorry, I had to edit my post...after reading your reply again... My point is that you brought up the "God Created..." subject. And now the thread is revolving around that subject. Not space, time etc.. The thread is derailed away form the intent that the OP had... Don't worry, if it wasn't you, it would have been someone else.. I'm surprised RevelationGeneration hasn't stopped by yet.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Tripple_Helix because: To add and correct.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Gravity is caused by the bending of space time as a result of an object's mass. It's not an invisible force as you call it, and fitting it into that bible version about "nothing" is a huge stretch. Nothing does hold the earth in place. It's constantly moving like everything else in the universe.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm sorry.

That reply to your thread was just mean and uncalled for.

I'm just so sick of the 'battle' attitude when it comes to Creationism vs Darwinism when both are correct in their own ways. I suppose it comes down to perspective, how one views 'God & Evolution'.

That's why I try and stay out of this subject now, more that ever. It just seems it's the same argument over and over.

Anyway. I'm sorry for jumping down your throat uncalled for.
Please accept my apology..

Sorry, I had to edit my post...after reading your reply again... My point is that you brought up the "God Created..." subject. And now the thread is revolving around that subject. Not space, time etc.. The thread is derailed away form the intent that the OP had... Don't worry, if it wasn't you, it would have been someone else.. I'm surprised RevelationGeneration hasn't stopped by yet.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Tripple_Helix because: To add and correct.


apology accepted Tripple_Helix,

thanks.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Interesting about the word random, I need to research that.

When you look at most things around us they have been created by someone or something. Why not us. When you look to biology it's so complicated it seems there had to be someone intelligent behind it.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist I've seen it myself.

Do you believe in love? As an intense feeling of deep affection? Or just hormones and chemicals?

I just don't understand how belief in God has to be so at odds with science to so many people. It wasn't for Newton or Einstein.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 



When you look at most things around us they have been created by someone or something. Why not us. When you look to biology it's so complicated it seems there had to be someone intelligent behind it.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist I've seen it myself.

Do you believe in love? As an intense feeling of deep affection? Or just hormones and chemicals?

I just don't understand how belief in God has to be so at odds with science to so many people. It wasn't for Newton or Einstein.


The reason it is believed that humans were not created is that it is possible to find a trail of evidence that suggests that humans evolved just as other life forms have evolved.

The love question is certainly interesting. Even if love is due to chemical interactions it still is love. It is the observable consequence of these chemicals. The complexity of the result is due to underlying complexity of the situation which may be just chemical in nature. Just like a movie exists independent of the device on which we view it, love can exist independent of the chemistry on which it depends.

I see the problem with religion and science as religion dogmatically forcing a solution onto science. Religion states that the answer must be a certain result because some religious text says that is so. To use a situation outside of the creationist discussion let me relate a situation I bumped into.

This group that believes in reincarnation had a booth at a festival that made it very clear that the big bang was wrong. Their dogma was that souls are never created or destroyed. They have been here in this universe for all time and the universe was here for all time. The big bang would require the creation of souls. Therefore the big bang was wrong and they provided their own warped science to show no big bang.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





they provided their own warped science to show no big bang.


What did this warped science entail? Im curious...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by lucidclouds
 



When you look at most things around us they have been created by someone or something. Why not us. When you look to biology it's so complicated it seems there had to be someone intelligent behind it.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist I've seen it myself.

Do you believe in love? As an intense feeling of deep affection? Or just hormones and chemicals?

I just don't understand how belief in God has to be so at odds with science to so many people. It wasn't for Newton or Einstein.


The reason it is believed that humans were not created is that it is possible to find a trail of evidence that suggests that humans evolved just as other life forms have evolved.

The love question is certainly interesting. Even if love is due to chemical interactions it still is love. It is the observable consequence of these chemicals. The complexity of the result is due to underlying complexity of the situation which may be just chemical in nature. Just like a movie exists independent of the device on which we view it, love can exist independent of the chemistry on which it depends.

I see the problem with religion and science as religion dogmatically forcing a solution onto science. Religion states that the answer must be a certain result because some religious text says that is so. To use a situation outside of the creationist discussion let me relate a situation I bumped into.

This group that believes in reincarnation had a booth at a festival that made it very clear that the big bang was wrong. Their dogma was that souls are never created or destroyed. They have been here in this universe for all time and the universe was here for all time. The big bang would require the creation of souls. Therefore the big bang was wrong and they provided their own warped science to show no big bang.


I understand what you are saying about religion, religion has done all sorts of evil things in the name of God and most push their beliefs over science. But, religion is not the same as believing that there is a creator.

Does the amount of chemicals equal the amount someone loves another person?

Thanks for the replies, I really enjoy getting peoples outlook on life.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 



I understand what you are saying about religion, religion has done all sorts of evil things in the name of God and most push their beliefs over science. But, religion is not the same as believing that there is a creator.

Does the amount of chemicals equal the amount someone loves another person?

The problem is that science works from the evidence to wherever it leads. Religion wants the result to match a particular outcome. It does not have to tainted with a label of evil. It is what it is.

Religion is right because many religious tales have a creation somewhere in there is has been claimed in this thread. So the Hopi are right and the Sumerians are right and the Greeks are right and the Egyptians are right and everyone is right if their religion includes a start to everything.

In the issue with the chemicals, remember my analogy that the movie is independent of the device that it is viewed on? The same applies here.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tripple_Helix
 



What did this warped science entail? Im curious...

The group I saw was a Hindi group which was using the puranas to suggest that there is no start to time.

They had a large booth set up at the 4th of July celebration in Washington DC. The booth had photos of other galaxies and nebula. It had explanations as to why astronomers were misinterpreting the evidence to suggest that there had been a big bang. They were backing the steady state universe model.

They explicitly stated that this was to back their contention that reincarnation had been happening forever.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join