Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific errors in the Bible
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6193 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 121 of 163 (28448)
01-05-2003 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by gene90
01-01-2003 8:39 PM


What is the probability that one will develop an eliptical model of the solar system through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 8:39 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by mark24, posted 01-05-2003 3:59 PM w_fortenberry has not replied
 Message 128 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2003 5:52 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5281 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 122 of 163 (28449)
01-05-2003 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by w_fortenberry
01-05-2003 3:58 PM


1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-05-2003 3:58 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 123 of 163 (28450)
01-05-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by w_fortenberry
12-08-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Could you please provide an explanation for the elliptical orbits of the planets?
As has been said two or three times now, an elliptical orbit is what you would expect. Gravity works in such a way (inverse square law, and all that Newton stuff) that ALL orbits are conic sections: circle, ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola. These differ mathematically only in their eccentricity: exactly zero, between zero and one, exactly one, and greater than one, respectively. I would venture to say that a true, really, honest-injun circular or parabolic orbit has yet to be found in all the universe: when orbital mechanics will allow any value, why stick with 0.000000000000000000000000? And the earth's eccentricity varies quite noticeably over time, anyway: this year it goes from 0.016725 to 0.016715 before August even gets here!
If you vary "exactly zero" at all, it ain't a circle any longer. An orbit that was truly circular would be a temporary freak occurence.
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by w_fortenberry, posted 12-08-2002 3:50 PM w_fortenberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-10-2003 10:50 AM Coragyps has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6193 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 124 of 163 (28815)
01-10-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Coragyps
01-05-2003 4:44 PM


What is the probability that this eliptical model developed through attributing to the earth an effective gravity equivalent to a central position within a finite, bounded universe will attribute to the other planets eliptical orbits around the sun of the same eccentricity as we currently observe in their orbits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Coragyps, posted 01-05-2003 4:44 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 01-10-2003 3:29 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 125 of 163 (28827)
01-10-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by w_fortenberry
01-10-2003 10:50 AM


Their eccentricities as of 2003.0, or of some other epoch? They change continuously, you know. And what difference does it make exactly what Uranus's orbital eccentricity is anyway??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-10-2003 10:50 AM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Laboo
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 163 (28875)
01-11-2003 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Arachnophile
05-07-2002 7:27 AM


Don't you think possibly that when it says "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet", so it's saying four legs, then they have legs above their feet, two more? I mean I know that's shallow what I'm saying, but possibly it could mean 6, don't stoop so low as to think that you have the right to act like you know what the bible means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-07-2002 7:27 AM The Arachnophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2003 5:28 PM Laboo has not replied
 Message 131 by The Arachnophile, posted 02-25-2003 9:42 AM Laboo has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 127 of 163 (28876)
01-11-2003 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Laboo
01-11-2003 5:22 PM


quote:
don't stoop so low as to think that you have the right to act like you know what the bible means.
Hi, Laboo! Is that really what you meant to say? Who's supposed to interpret what it does mean for us, if not us ourselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Laboo, posted 01-11-2003 5:22 PM Laboo has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 820 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 128 of 163 (28877)
01-11-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by w_fortenberry
01-05-2003 3:58 PM


For w fortenberry, from Roy Bishop's article on "Orbital Motion" in the Observer's Handbook 2003 of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada:
"According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, gravitation is not a mysterious force that one mass exerts upon a distant mass; gravitation is the geometry (non-Euclidean) of the 4-dimensional spacetime within which we and the stars exist. Golf balls (if air friction is ignored), satellites, planets, and stars follow geodesics, the straightest possible, force-free paths through a spacetime whose geometry is shaped by mass-energy. The difficulty in intellectually grasping a non-Euclidean spacetime originates with us. Common sense is inadequate. This is not surprising, given that our common sense is based on the Euclidean, 3-dimensional geometry of straight lines, rectangles, and spheres we learned in the crib by age 2."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by w_fortenberry, posted 01-05-2003 3:58 PM w_fortenberry has not replied

  
Breonharte1
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 163 (30136)
01-24-2003 4:40 PM


Why does everyone believe that the Flood was global? What if it were regional? What if, since humans did not spread over the Earth until after the Flood, they had to stay in one region for a long time. So, why not flood only that region? What use would it have been to flood Antarctica, if no one worth punishing lived there, since on one lived there period?

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-25-2003 12:04 PM Breonharte1 has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 163 (30171)
01-25-2003 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Breonharte1
01-24-2003 4:40 PM


here is one good reason.
something that was mentioned (IIRC) in the scriptures is that the highest mountain in the areas was covered by water. The only way that is possible is if the whole world has been covered such that the water could retain its height.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Breonharte1, posted 01-24-2003 4:40 PM Breonharte1 has not replied

  
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 163 (33138)
02-25-2003 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Laboo
01-11-2003 5:22 PM


Interpreting the Bible
"Don't you think possibly that when it says "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet", so it's saying four legs, then they have legs above their feet, two more?"
It is entriely possible that God meant to say that insects have six legs, but why not spell it out??? I mean, surely he knows what an insect looks like and does not need to be mysterious about it?
The most interesting part of your reply is this passage, however:
"...don't stoop so low as to think that you have the right to act like you know what the bible means"
Who has the right to act like they know what the Bible means? People who agree with your interpretation??? This is creationist-religious arguing at its best!
The Arachnophile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Laboo, posted 01-11-2003 5:22 PM Laboo has not replied

  
Unashamed
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 163 (33396)
02-27-2003 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Arachnophile
05-07-2002 7:27 AM


arnebeth != hare
In reply to point #2:
The fact that the hare doesn't chew cud would have been obvious to the ancient Isrealites. The hebrew word "arnebeth" is translated as "hare" because of the problem that many translaters feel (or felt) that they must equate all animals mentioned in the bible to animals existing today. Many animals have become extinct since the old testament was written. There is no reason to equate the words "arnebeth" and "hare".
P.S. If you get a chance, please expand upon your claim that "There are many, many more examples of how scientifically wrong the Bible is..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-07-2002 7:27 AM The Arachnophile has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by iconoclast2440, posted 02-28-2003 9:11 AM Unashamed has not replied

  
iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 163 (33427)
02-28-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Unashamed
02-27-2003 10:25 PM


Re: arnebeth != hare
unashamed can you provide evidence for what type of animal this creature could have been aside from being a Hare?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Unashamed, posted 02-27-2003 10:25 PM Unashamed has not replied

  
tamijudah
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 163 (33945)
03-08-2003 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jonathan
07-04-2002 10:28 PM


Bible says
in message 2 Q... states that there is a guy who belives insects servived during the flood. But it say in Gen. 7:22 that all living things died. I just wanted to let that person know what the Bible says even though i am a evolutionist. Let me know your imput. thanks
------------------
tami judah

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jonathan, posted 07-04-2002 10:28 PM Jonathan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Quetzal, posted 05-22-2003 2:20 AM tamijudah has not replied

  
lcswoosh
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 163 (40918)
05-21-2003 4:53 PM


lol silly theists!
in the bible itself it says God is a word, and God created the world true to his word...yet no matter can be created or destroyed and he defies his own law that he says he DID create the world with?
lol ok that my own attempt to sound scientific but i'm no good.
------------------
-Adam

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024