What is creation science?
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
brennan
Argumentative Brit
AFAIK there's no principle that makes this impossible. If you change your angular momentum you go into a new orbit. Using a distinct transfer orbit followed by a second burn once you are in the right place is a deliberate over adjustment for the sake of speed in the change, which then requires a second adjustment to compensate. The only difference between the two orbits is the amount of angular momentum, and that only requires a single impulse.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Do you believe that Thor exists? If not, why do you call ancient Greeks liars?
Thor was a Norse god, not Greek.
Berzerker
Deity
Thats not true, the enuma elish describes the planets and the order of their creation. Between Tiamat and the Sun are 3 planets, beyond Taimat (Earth) are 2 pairs and a moon. When Marduk approaches the battle with Tiamat the text says he was clothed with the halo of 10 gods.
Thats true, the asteroid belt is not an exploded or failed planet, its the remnants of a collision.
How did Jupiter form faster than planets closer to the sun? According to the theory I heard, Jupiter formed further out and migrated inward while the outer gas giants formed closer and migrated outward. The freeze line is where the first planet of any substance formed first, thats the asteroid belt.
The mechanism for delivering those asteroids did not exist yet... We had surface water long before the LHB, they dont know what we had before that - other than surface water! But I'm glad you've learned what LHB means
Does Europa have the necessary volcanism and atmosphere to produce an ice/water ocean on its surface? You're wrong, if this world formed at the freeze line it was surrounded by volatile gases cleared from the inner solar system. The accretion of Earth occurred within a zone where water vapor was at its thickest. That drag would have produced a planet faster than one twice as far (Jupiter).
Thats because its talking about our solar system, just like Genesis...
The lower range when they're across the solar system aint relevant, there is still a range for when Saturn is above and below the ecliptic. That range is ~23-27. You didn't know this? I trust my math.
8 + .4
The 9 steps of Chichen Itza coincides with the 9 Lords of the Night. Its in their cosmology, not just the architecture.
The Earth's tilt is 23.5 degrees, aint no planet 23.5 degrees from us - other than asteroids and comets. Saturn's tilt lines up with Pluto and Mercury does not point at Mars and your insults are boring. Cya
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I believe that warpus represents an actual modern human. I accept that warpus believes the ancients made up stories that are lies. Neither of these points declare my thoughts on the ancients. It is just as doubtful that Thor, Zeus, or the I AM may exist at this very moment. What they represented to the ancients may be similar, and the written accounts may offer different opinions on the same phenomenon.
I would not say that modern sci-fi authors are liars, fiction is fiction. Why would I declare that the ancients are liars, based on my belief system? It is my experiences that form my belief system, not what some ancients may have experienced themselves. Writing down an epic from imagination, or even source material that was not actually experienced by the writer, is fiction. The complication comes from determining what was experienced and what was not. That is why it inherits the idea of extra-ordinary. How can modern human's prove what is fiction or not, other than tossing out that which goes against their own experiences and ability of their own senses, and perception of phenomenon? It would seem to be their word against modern phenomenon.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Gravity didn't exist yet?
Again, " You know why there's an H in LHB? Why do you think they put it there?" To contrast it of course, with the not so heavy early bombardment. Cripes almighty man.
http://www.livescience.com/40699-earth-water-origin-asteroid-impacts.html
Now unless you produce anything else than: trust me man, I know this stuff, I'm going to say to you:
Would you please just stop with this nonsense? The ancient Babylonians could not have known about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Nobody did, prior to the invention of the telescope by the Dutch in the early 17th century.
The asteroid belt is part of the leftover material that wasn't able to form a planet.
Well, they could have known if ancient astronauts had visited and shared all that information with them and they had somehow perfectly understood what said astronauts were woffling on about. Berserker has so far failed to justify this claim in any sensible fashion whatsoever, mostly because even it was true, it's pretty much impossible to prove.
@tim - why do you insist that people who reject the historical factual veracity of ancient texts think the writers were actively lying? I don't think that at all.
I think people could look at something, like the skull of an elephant, for instance, and logically (though incorrectly) conclude that this creature had one enormous forward-facing eyeball. That's far more reasonable than concluding the nose is monstrously elongated and has prehensile musculature around the tip!
So if they report the existence of Giants with a single eye, they're not lying. They don't know that what they're writing is wrong. That's the key difference. But I've seen you resort to this trope whenever current understanding shows ancient texts to be wrong.
Your position seems to be that if someone wrote it down, then *either* it's a fact that must be accommodated, *or* the ancient author(s) knew they were writing down something that was false.
You don't do the ancients enough justice, in my opinion. They weren't liars, but simply lacked the shoulders of the Giants we stand upon. In fact, many of them were those very Giants.
I think people could look at something, like the skull of an elephant, for instance, and logically (though incorrectly) conclude that this creature had one enormous forward-facing eyeball. That's far more reasonable than concluding the nose is monstrously elongated and has prehensile musculature around the tip!
So if they report the existence of Giants with a single eye, they're not lying. They don't know that what they're writing is wrong. That's the key difference. But I've seen you resort to this trope whenever current understanding shows ancient texts to be wrong.
Your position seems to be that if someone wrote it down, then *either* it's a fact that must be accommodated, *or* the ancient author(s) knew they were writing down something that was false.
You don't do the ancients enough justice, in my opinion. They weren't liars, but simply lacked the shoulders of the Giants we stand upon. In fact, many of them were those very Giants.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Because the textural critics have pounded doubt into those who have stood up on behalf of ancient writers who defended the point they were recording the truth. I have heard the word fabricated on several occasions, even in this forum. I am not defending the fact that they may have been mislead (I don't think they were). I am coming from the point of view that they were not examining past historical phenomenon, but were writing down the very experiences they were going through at the time. I am not the one calling them liars. If you want to use the Bible as an example, then what is the source that no one can identify yet they say that all other sources are based on it. This hidden source that no one can find traces of. (Yes, I know there is one for the OT and a different one for the NT) Call me crazy, but it could be God. I have no proof, but neither is there proof that it is not.
I could apply that to all ancient writings though and even verbal stories passed down from parent to offspring. It is the onus of current living people to accept that everything unless specifically stated was passed down as truth, although along the way may have been embellished and changed. There are some writings like epics, that may have been written as fiction. I do believe the ancients knew the difference between fact and fiction and stated it in their intent. If we fail to maintain that recordings of experiences are not maintained as truthful, then neither will our offspring thousands of years from now accept current recordings as truth either. The command of Jesus was not to stagnate or dogmatize the truth, but to record it and use it as good news for all who follow. The same command was given through out the OT also, but all we focus on today is the law and how unethical God is.
I realize that I get critical in my post quite often, and it is not to be taken as being judgmental. It is just the way my thoughts come across. I am constantly being accused in my daily articulations that every topic is grounds for an argument and me explaining my point of view.
I could apply that to all ancient writings though and even verbal stories passed down from parent to offspring. It is the onus of current living people to accept that everything unless specifically stated was passed down as truth, although along the way may have been embellished and changed. There are some writings like epics, that may have been written as fiction. I do believe the ancients knew the difference between fact and fiction and stated it in their intent. If we fail to maintain that recordings of experiences are not maintained as truthful, then neither will our offspring thousands of years from now accept current recordings as truth either. The command of Jesus was not to stagnate or dogmatize the truth, but to record it and use it as good news for all who follow. The same command was given through out the OT also, but all we focus on today is the law and how unethical God is.
I realize that I get critical in my post quite often, and it is not to be taken as being judgmental. It is just the way my thoughts come across. I am constantly being accused in my daily articulations that every topic is grounds for an argument and me explaining my point of view.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah I know, I was trying to be inclusive but worded it awkwardly.
That or maybe I was drinking.
timtofly said:
You treat their claims in the exact same way you'd treat such claims from me.
Say I come to you and I say: "I saw a flying pig! It was flying around and dropping off candy." Would you believe me? Why or why not?
If instead I told you that I saw a running pig, would you believe me then? A pig that runs, and I saw it. Is that more believable?
And that's how we treat stories from a long time ago. If they're about flying pigs, we stop and wonder if it's just all hogwash or if it actually might have happened.. but if the story is about a running pig, there is nothing to question there. Pigs can run, it is well known.
This isn't about lies or thinking that anybody's lying.
timtofly said:
Not every single book written in the past was meant to have been a word for word recounting of what actually happened.. you know that, right? In fact, most books written back then weren't like that. So why assume that they were?
You are missing the very large difference between what people believe to be true and what is actually true. Even if I fully intend to tell the truth and spread what I believe to be true, there is no guarantee at all that I am actually telling the truth. I might have made a mistake or I didn't know a crucial detail. I certainly hope that humanity in a thousand years does not consider something I wrote as truth, because I wrote it, but because they will be making the same observations and experiences.
As an example: I honestly believe that you are wrong. Does that mean that you have to accept this as truth, because I believe it to be true and I am stating it as fact and not as fiction?
