Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.1 As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby.2
As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was:
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Your nonsense is one of the main reasons I haven’t been posting much on FR. I will not engage in debate with your ridiculus assertations because that would grant them far more credibility than they deserve.
Sometimes it is more important to lose one’s decorum in order to say exactly what needs to be said and you are providing perfect example.
You, GourmetDan, need to be elevated for the whole world to see. You need to be held up as a classic example of a crank. Your thoughts are worthless, your postings are anti-intellectual trash even though you have every right to say them.
The simple fact that Free Republic not only tolerates you but defends and encourages you in your self-centered quest as a freak messiah of medival, anti-rationality to those who want to believe in every nut-job, anti-science and anti-establishment crackpot idea shows how this website has degenerated over the last couple of years.
It was a good place to get interesting information and to learn something new. But your postings, amongst others, have contaminated legitimate information here with the Weekly World News version of science and makes everything here seem dubious. It’s at the point where this is a dangerous place to get any information because garbage like yours dominates these threads. And it is a danger to the reputation of any rational person who choses to engage your folly.
I make no apologies for calling you what you are [a crank] and calling you out on your hair-brained ideas worth of a cave man [apologies to any cave men reading this].
Thank you, GourmetDan, for being a perfect example of the antithesis of rationality. Please continue your postings so there will be more and more examples of what this site has become and the depths a crank will go.
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!
Hey great!
Sometimes unintended consequences can be positive!
Yeah, everyone should wait until you are satisfied (which will never happen) before they are allowed to express their opinion.
Bad boy Brandt! Your opinion isn't valid until allmendream says it is.
It was hardly just his opinion. He said you had answered my every inquiry while that is simply not the case, you have studiously avoided answering my two main questions repeatedly.
What force could drag the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless?
What Biblical support can you find for Geocentricism?
If it wasn't his opinion, what was it? A fact?
"He said you had answered my every inquiry while that is simply not the case, you have studiously avoided answering my two main questions repeatedly."
Apparently he thought I did answer your inquiries adequately. It's clear that you'll continue to make your claim no matter what explanation or information I give you. That's a classic evo tactic in 'discussions'.
I suppose what is surprising is that you really believe that no one can see through it. Apparently there's at least one.
What explanation or information have you ‘given me’ on either of my two lines of inquiry?
What Biblical passage supports Geocentricism?
What force could drag the Sun around the Moon?
Why are you so afraid to answer these simple questions if you are so sure of the superiority of your Geocentric model?
Why so you find it necessary to insult the Weekly World News?
Go back through the thread and read what I've already posted.
Your answers are there if you can understand them.
Sheesh.
Also you have not cited a single Biblical passage in support of Geocentricism.
Claiming I don't understand what you are obviously not saying while claiming you are seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts.
One word answer: What force drags the Sun around the Earth? (hint, there is only the Strong, the Electromagnetic, and Gravity; pick one).
Citation answer: What biblical passage do you feel supports Geocentricity?
Inability to type one word and one citation speaks volumes about you. One hides only that which they cannot defend.
Sometimes it is more important to lose one’s decorum in order to say exactly what needs to be said and you are providing perfect example.
You, GourmetDan, need to be elevated for the whole world to see. You need to be held up as a classic example of a crank. Your thoughts are worthless, your postings are anti-intellectual trash even though you have every right to say them.
The simple fact that Free Republic not only tolerates you but defends and encourages you in your self-centered quest as a freak messiah of medival, anti-rationality to those who want to believe in every nut-job, anti-science and anti-establishment crackpot idea shows how this website has degenerated over the last couple of years.
It was a good place to get interesting information and to learn something new. But your postings, amongst others, have contaminated legitimate information here with the Weekly World News version of science and makes everything here seem dubious. It’s at the point where this is a dangerous place to get any information because garbage like yours dominates these threads. And it is a danger to the reputation of any rational person who choses to engage your folly.
I make no apologies for calling you what you are [a crank] and calling you out on your hair-brained ideas worth of a cave man [apologies to any cave men reading this].
Thank you, GourmetDan, for being a perfect example of the antithesis of rationality. Please continue your postings so there will be more and more examples of what this site has become and the depths a crank will go.
Bump.
Just answering questions. There's no getting around the fact that geocentrism is equivalent to geokineticism under GR per Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis. To claim that there is some physically significant difference is to reject GR because GR says there is none. If it doesn't make sense it's because you don't understand.
"Claiming I don't understand what you are obviously not saying while claiming you are seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts."
Claiming that I have not answered your questions seems your only tactic, and it is a rather shoddy one, but in keeping with the general intellectual and honesty level of your posts.
That was rude.
(Now he won’t explain how a sun made up of water functions.)
Not at all. The existence of ovens is testable and falsifiable.
Your argument is akin to someone trying to understand the origin of a cake without ever having seen an oven. And when confronted with the idea, rejects it out of hand - because in their experience, ovens don't exist.
Since the existence of ovens (as opposed to God) is testable and falsifiable, such a conclusion would not be reached.
However, If God exists then Genesis is no longer a myth, it is a possibility - an answer. You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology. See:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
If you're taking it on faith, it's not science.
You might say that you accept that there is a god - just not the one that Genesis describes (he purposely created an illusion - not fair!). But how can you place constraints on a creator (how he is allowed to create)? "Can the pot say to the potter - 'why have you made me this way?'".
What illusion? In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be. If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
The Bible states that there is enough evidence in creation that points to the existence of God - and I for one accept this statement. Logic alone dictates that you don't get get the universe we see, life on this planet - as a result of blind luck and chance.
Logic dictates no such thing. Here's a list of logical fallacies commonly associated with those who reject evolution:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
You seem to be employing #7: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.
So you say "I reject Genesis". Well, I reject blind luck and chance. But I also assert that there is enough other truth in the Bible to give meaning and purpose to what we see in this world. The problem - what causes those who "know" - to stumble or at least stop - is that faith is required.
I think your argument falls completely apart at this point. You've been speaking about the definition of science, and you're now asserting that faith is required. Faith is the antithesis of science.
And all I can say is if you don't have faith - ask for it.
Why? The universe is being investigated by those who use the scientific method, and it works. Faith (for these purposes) doesn't.
God Bless
Thank you.
Why not just answer “The Firmament”, and be done with it? You know, The Firmament, that shell of matter of near infinite density into which the Sun, Moon, and stars are embedded. The one that rotates around the Earth once every day. The Firmament, aka Heaven. That is the correct answer per the geocentric view, no?
“I've already answered” is a common tactic of those who have not answered and are embarrassed to.
What force could drag the Sun around the Earth? Talking about coordinate systems and general relativity and the tides doesn't answer this question, it avoids it.
What in the Bible supports Geocentricism?
Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?
Not at all. The existence of God is neither testable nor falsifiable.
At the risk of being argumentative, I'll restate: You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
Your response (and link) Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology is simply a straw man and is in truth a non-sequitur.
You responded later: What illusion?
This was perhaps not your claim, but the point has been made on this thread that if one were to accept the idea of a young earth, one would have to conclude that God was tricking us because starlight would have to have been artificially made.
In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be.
Does this include the claim that there is no creator?
If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
Agreed
Again I'll restate: You (apparently) reject Genesis. Well, I reject blind luck and chance. And again I'll lay claim to the logic of my position, simply because of the truly astronomical odds required that blind luck and chance brought us to this place and time.
Are you aware of an occasion or event where something (matter) came from nothing? If not, your position (imho) is illogical at best and unscientific at worst.
Grace.
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.