Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ah, now we are moving from the Special Theory of Relativity to the General Theory of Relativity ...
Let there be light occurs before the days of creation. The first few sentences are more important than the rest, IMHO.
no. no. no. no. no.
"we" are doing no such thing.
I shall retire from this segment of the discussion for the purposes of the conservation of my sanity, which CAN be converted to something else
:)
ekshooley, that chem101 class existed for one purpose alone: to weed out premeds who couldn't cut it.
I'll tell ya about it sometime.
ICR has no science. Talk origins is ALL science.
You have twisted into a false equivocation for some reason.
I can tell you are closed to any rational discussion. So, I won't be attempting to teach you anything further.
yes, but that PHRASE came into being long after man grew accustomed to associating sunrise with beginnings. I ain't impressed by it nohow.
But. but. but. but the GT of Relativity says that the "person" cannot distinguish whether he is accelerating or rather stationary in a gravitational field.
For example, the "classical" case of the person in the elevator that is accelerating upwards. He doesn't know he is accelerating, just that "gravity has increased".
Or, close your eyes and jump off a building. You will be accelerating but have NO sensation of accelerating, just a floating feeling (ingnoring wind noise), till you hit the ground.
LOL Could you put a different caption on that?
Not Chem 101. You are thinking of Organic Chemistry.
There is a lot written about the influence of Sun God worship got into the Bible.
oh, no - I am not going to get into that one, either
I have no desire to deliberately goad the religious participants on this thread.
NOT AT TULANE
I said evidence, not proof. You have given no evidence. You haven't given any proof either. All you have given is opinion, feeling or hunch.
I was simply trying to point out the difference between scientific evidence and the Bravo Sierra most creationists expound.
I have several evidences for God. One is the phrase "let there be light" in Genesis. This is an indication that Genesis is divinely inspired, as simple bronze age people would not know about E=mc2 or the Big Bang. This type of "predictive" passage is similar to what scientific theories allow us to do.
To me, science is confirmation of God's existence. To try to convince creationists that the Big Bang or conversion of mass and energy is evidence for God is like pulling teeth.
The biggest evidence for God is Christ's Resurrection. Any Christian that does not put that on the list, is not much of a Christian.
s-The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings.
t-Now, this did not come up in my previous post addressing this subject but for a flagellum to function it needs the pump and motor, not the rings.
It is pathetic you don't even understand what the definition of irreducible complexity means, it is your side's own made up term.
LOL
Talkorigins.org holds the view that since evolution has occurred only fools believe otherwise -- which is fine. I do think they feign an objectivity they don't have, which is a little dishonest.
I am not enough of a math guy to understand that stuff.
When some one is in an accident they say they were thrown into the windshield. That is actually the GT inertial frame of reference view (The car is slowing down but and accelerating (non-inertial) frame of reference). From the persons view (inertial frame of reference) it would be more appropriate to say that the windshield flew against the person.
Seems that the layman is way ahead on this one as Eienstien had to introduce non-inertial frames of reference to explain the GT of relativity, acceleration and gravity.
this is the first time I have heard of chemical and kinetic reactions having anything to do with conversion of energy to mass and vice-versa.
Note to creationists: The above is called learning (also humility, a character feature of Christ that creationists don't display very often)
It is pathetic you don't even understand what the definition of irreducible complexity means, it is your side's own made up term.
OK. Define irreducible complexity.
Rakia, the word for firmament is literally the beating of metal into a thin foil. In the context of Genesis, which is the only place I can find the word used like this, I am convinced it is a description of the bounds of the universe.
It was translated firmament, because no one really knows what that is. Until recently, no one would dream to translate it the way I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.