God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

[Subduction Zone]

Relative to what? your surroundings. Just as this earth is in Motion, is not the trees on this planet have the same Relative speed as us human at rest as the EARTH?

don't be silly .... you look bad, now address the question, and not 101G.

101G.

Then you should have said that. Don't blame others for your failures. There is no need to be moving to accelerate. One can accelerate from zero.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again, another personal opinion? address the topic question, and not 101G.

101G.

Nope. Supportable facts.

 

[101G]

Then you should have said that. Don't blame others for your failures. There is no need to be moving to accelerate. One can accelerate from zero.

you should have already known that .... if you're a man of SCIENCE.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you should have already known that .... if you're a man of SCIENCE.

101G.

I don't want to be accused of being a mind reader.

 

[101G]

I don't want to be accused of being a mind reader.

true, you been doing a pretty bad job of it thus far.

now, address the science question of 0 velocity. as with Eve having children in the Garden. other words one cannot increase in child-bearing unless she already has children.

thanks in advance.

101G

 

[Subduction Zone]

true, you been doing a pretty bad job of it thus far.

now, address the science question of 0 velocity. as with Eve having children in the Garden. other words one cannot increase in child-bearing unless she already has children.

thanks in advance.

101G

Sorry, ask a proper question. That is a failed analogy at best using a mythical character.

 

[Heyo]

is not this area is called Religion and, and, and, SCIENCE? and has not 101G presented science in scriptures?

if you want to prove 101G in ERROR, about the CREATION account, why not address the FACTS inn the scriptures, instead of 101G.

I don't address the "facts" because it is you who is misrepresenting them. And when I address your falsehoods, you ignore me. E.g. you haven't answered post #84, yet. You also dodged my question about your age and education.

 

[101G]

Sorry, ask a proper question. That is a failed analogy at best using a mythical character.

well give it a try using SCIENCE.

understand, accelerate undergo a change in velocity. but if one velocity is constance 0/zero which in terms Constance means the quality of being unchanging or unwavering.

so if she never had children in the Garden why INCREACE her conception and sorrow?

see the analogy now? and God don't LIIE

101G.

 

[101G]

Do you know what a firmament is?

yes, it's a space design for Hydro-cycle in reaction to tempture changes/

Did you know that the moon is not a light source but that the stars are? The author of that account obviously didn't.

ERROR, the moon is not an original light source but a reflective source.... please get your SCIENCE Right.

Tidal effects are only there when the sun is shining?

is not the sun shinning All the time?

Nope. Look up precession.

I did,

Nope. Look up eclipse.

I Did

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well give it a try using SCIENCE.

understand, accelerate undergo a change in velocity. but if one velocity is constance 0/zero which in terms Constance means the quality of being unchanging or unwavering.

so if she never had children in the Garden why INCREACE her conception and sorrow?

see the analogy now? and God don't LIIE

101G.

Sorry, but have a velocity of zero does not mean that it is "unwavering". That can at best be a statement about its velocity at a specific time.

In physics velocity is a function that can vary with time. It is sometimes written v(t). To find the acceleration one would takes its first derivative with respect to t.. That would give us a new function a(t).

Now, why did I use bold letters twice?

And thank you for confirming that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. If God can't lie then there was no Adam and Eve.

 

[F1fan]

implausible? FACE VALUE? Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

That is an appeal to faith and/or belief, not reason. The Bible doesn't offer any eevidence that any God exists, nor that any of the storeis are true in reality, so we dismiss any of it being interpreted literally by default.

Feel free to offer facts and a coherent explanation that any of your interpretations are true. Thus far you only refer to the Bible, which is the source of your claims, not evidence. You thinking the Bible proves itself is a alogical fallacy called circular reasoning.

So, since facts gathered in geology, archaeology, biology, genetics, cosmology, chemistry, and other sciences the claim that a global flood occurred in the near past isn't true or even plasible. I will add engineering because the claim of some massive wodden boat being built to the size the Noah myth suggests could not be built even today with modern techniques and technology. Wood does not have the strength to withstand the forces of water on a hull as it floats. The largest wooden ship ever built was the Wyoming and was 450 feet long and finished in 1909. As it sailed the sailoers reported constant twisting and creaks, and they had to put numerous pumps to remove the water because it constantly leaked. It ended up sinking in a storm. The Noah flood myth refers to a massive deluge and storm waters covering the earth.

Back in the late 90's a creationist engineer was dead set on examining all the woods on the planet and figuring out what gopher wood was, the wood the Bible claims the Ark was made from. He tested every wood he could find and reported the specifications and how well it would work buing use to build a wooden ship estimated to be 800 feet long and 60 feet wide. As he worked he discovered few wood were suitable to build a boat with, and eliminated each one. In the end he couldn't find any wood that could be used. His (bad) conclusion was that gopher wood was a pre-flood type that no longer exists. Did he have any evidence of this? No, it was the only conclusion he could dream up so he could maintain his assumption that the Noah myth was true. I tried to find his website some years ago and it was no longer there. I don't blame him, why advertise that your beliefs can't be supported by the facts?

That aside, it is the fact that there are settlements and civilizations that have gone on existing from well before the time of Noah that did not get interrupted by a global flood, namley in India and China who have records and long term established histories.

But the most devastating fact against a global flood is genetics. If there was a flood like that of the Noah myth there would be a genetic bottleneck of all species going back 4000 years or so. There isn't. This is a "nail in the coffin" to the Noah myth believers. This makes the myth impossible despite what any Bible text says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes, it's a space design for Hydro-cycle in reaction to tempture changes/

Nope, you apparently do not understand Hebrew.

ERROR, the moon is not an original light source but a reflective source.... please get your SCIENCE Right.

Thank you for confirming that the Bible is wrong again.

is not the sun shinning All the time?

Yes, what does that have to do with tides? You do not even know the number one cause of tides. Science fail!!

I did,

Too bad that you do not understand what it means.

I Did

101G.

Again, too bad that you do not seem to know what it means. By the way, your posts tell us that you lack an understanding of what you are babbling about.

 

[101G]

Sorry, but have a velocity of zero does not mean that it is "unwavering". That can at best be a statement about its velocity at a specific time.

In physics velocity is a function that can vary with time. It is sometimes written v(t). To find the acceleration one would takes its first derivative with respect to t.. That would give us a new function a(t).

Now, why did I use bold letters twice?

And thank you for confirming that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. If God can't lie then there was no Adam and Eve.

lol, lol, lol. so we can this as you cannot address the question.... thought so.... Yikes!
101G

 

[101G]

That is an appeal to faith and/or belief, not reason. The Bible doesn't offer any eevidence that any God exists, nor that any of the storeis are true

no, FACTS

101G

 

[101G]

Nope, you apparently do not understand Hebrew.

no, you don't understand SCIENCE. that Arch what we call the sky affect life on, on, the planet.... (smile)

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, lol, lol. so we can this as you cannot address the question.... thought so.... Yikes!
101G

You used flawed science and then applied it to a myth. There is not "there" there. There is nothing to address.

Perhaps you should try to learn a little bit of science instead of parroting phrases and terms that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, you don't understand SCIENCE. that Arch what we call the sky affect life on, on, the planet.... (smile)

101G.

I thought that you were a Christian?

 

[danieldemol]

not from at REST. accelerate is defined undergo a change in velocity. grt your science books out.,,,, (smile)

101G.

I believe V1=0km/h to V2=1km/hr is a change in velocity.

I can't post a science book to a screen, but I can post a science link.

'Can an object at rest have acceleration?

Yes, acceleration is a change in velocity, so an object might be momentarily at rest but a split-second later have some speed, i.e. it can be changing its velocity even if it is momentarily at rest. An example is a vertically thrown ball at the top of its trajectory, or a yo-yo just as it turns around.'

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wQFnoECBMQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2GRRYzBYb5c4RUG6Y-tUtV

In my opinion.

 

[Alien826]

What an interesting thread!

I've encountered people from AiG before and I recognize a lot of what he is saying as coming from there. The essential belief is that the Bible is the literal word of God and as such overrides any statements that contradict it. The big difference is that they try to justify their beliefs in scientific terms, and in doing so they twist science all out of shape. To be fair the people that write it do appear to be more organized thinkers than our friend the OP.

Something I have learned here is the origin of the phrase "science so called". They say there is science (that does not contradict the Bible) and science so called (that does). What I didn't know is that the phrase comes from the KJV of the Bible. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[101G]

You used flawed science and then applied it to a myth. There is not "there" there. There is nothing to address.

Perhaps you should try to learn a little bit of science instead of parroting phrases and terms that you do not understand.

personal opinion always.... NEXT

101G.