Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: LeGrande; Hank Kerchief
Said Hank:
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
Replied LeGrande:
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
LeGrande, whether intentionally or not, your answer to Hank was not honest/true.

You see, when someone says "It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air" they are really implicitly saying (that is, they are saying by implication) "If the machine is constructed at a certain shape, and is propelled through the air at a rate great enough that the craft's own weight is being displaced with downward accelerated air, then the craft will fly...." and so on - and of course there are lots of details I left out.

But the fact is that the theory (being that under certain clearly defined conditions planes do fly) that Hank is talking about IS proven: It is a proven fact that if you or I build a plane that meets certain (pretty lax) defined requirements, it WILL ALWAYS FLY. At least it has never been demonstrated that there are cases that it will not fly even when it's built to correctly and is displacing it's own weight in downward accelerated air. This is an experiment that I proven myself.

Now, it has been unquestionably proven that under the right conditions, an airplane can fly. There's no way that anyone can falsify that the theory that under the right conditions, airplanes can fly.

But what about the theory that says "When an airplane is displacing downward its own weight in air, it will fly"? Is that theory falsifiable? Well, you might be able to falsify that one if you could show me that an airplane that was accelerating downward air greater at a thrust greater then its own weight and still not flying.

But the theory that under the right conditions airplanes do always fly is simply not falsifiable - and yet it has been proven many many times.

Coming from someone who works in real science (electronics, computer science, physics on the side) there is much more to science then just being falsifiable. Being provable is extremely important, and things need not always be falsifiable.

-Jesse
1,126 posted on 07/01/2009 1:20:18 AM PDT by mrjesse (The big bang and dark matter exist only in black holes that are supposed to be full of gray matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1059 | View Replies ]


To: mrjesse

Those hwo would argue (and apparently look down hteir noses at htose who do not agree with hteir itnerpretations of God’s word) that Day Meant ‘long ages’ are forced to do so by ignoring certain key elements in God’s word, and ignoring grammatical context.

“In Exodus 20:11, He said that in “six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them and rested on the seventh day.”

“The length of the “days” of creation in Genesis has involved a major controversy in Biblical interpretation among evangelicals for over 150 years. Many have sought to redefine the term in light of the naturalistic presuppositions of modern scientism. Therefore, let us attempt, honestly, to examine the evidence from Scripture.

The communication of language is through words and their use. We must ask ourselves why Moses was using the words he did, and not other words. What is the meaning he was trying to communicate to his original audience and to us, as well? Why did Moses use the word “day” and not the more generic term, “time”? Is there any significance to the repeated use of numbers in the account (”first day,” “second day,” etc.)? Why are these “days” bounded by the terms, “evening and morning”? As we examine the text of Genesis 1, answers to these questions become clear....

Those who argue that the word “day” means “long age,” point out that the Hebrew word, yom, can have a number of meanings, only one of which is “day of 24 hours.”1 They further seek to strengthen their position with the use of Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8, comparing a day to a thousand years. Both of these verses, however, are simply using figures of speech (similes) to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as are humans. These verses are really irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of “day,” in Genesis 1.
The use of a number with the word “day” is very illuminating. This combination occurs 357 times outside of Genesis 1. The combination is used in four different ways, but each time it is used, it must mean 24-hour periods of time. If the combinations had been intended to mean long periods of time, both the texts and contexts then become meaningless. A typical verse is Genesis 30:36: “And he (Laban) set three days journey betwixt himself and Jacob.” God frequently issued commands that the people were to do or not to do certain things on a given day. This use occurs 162 times. A good example is Exodus 24:16: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days, and on the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.” These are the most typical uses of the word “day” with a number. Four times the terms are used to show a starting point. Ezra 3:6 says, “From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord.” A number may also be used with “day” to convey an ending point. An example is Leviticus 19:6: “It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.” It would appear, then, that whenever the Old Testament uses a number with the word “day,” it means a 24-hour period of time without any demonstrable exception....

The meaning of the term “day” must be seen in conjunction with the use of “evening” and “morning.” Those who would argue that the days are long periods contend that these terms can have figurative meanings.12 But what is their meaning in the context of Genesis 1? We must ask ourselves, how would the people have understood these terms “evening” and “morning?” Is Moses, and by extension, God, trying to deceive us by not telling us the truth about the length of the “days?” The Old Testament records 38 times when these two words are used in the same verse. Each time they occur, the meaning must be that of a normal day. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point: Exodus 16:8 says, “And Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full.” Also Exodus 18:13, “and the people stood by Moses from the morning until the evening.” All the other occurrences are essentially the same. So then, it would appear that when the words “morning” and “evening” are used in the same verse, they must refer to a normal day.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/288/306/


1,130 posted on 07/01/2009 8:05:06 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1126 | View Replies ]

To: mrjesse

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One). As well, if some of hte first six days means ‘long ages, and some of them are literal days, how are we to determine when the SABBATH day is? Is is after a period of 1000 years + 2 literal days? A period of 1,000,000 years + 2 leteral days? Did God work for ‘long periods’, and hten a couple of literal days and just assign the word Sabbath to an allegorical day? How was it determined at htta point that the Sabbath was the 7’th day if some of God’s ‘days’ during creation were ‘long ages’? Why does Yom mean ‘long ages’ in the first days, but then switches to literal days at hte end of creation? Wouldn’t the writer have made clear hte distinction so that people would not be confused?

Those makign hte case for ‘long ages’ got some ‘splainin to do (not to mention ‘word manipulation, and context twisting to do)

“Some say that Exodus 20:11 is only an analogy in the sense that man is to work and rest—not that it was to mean six literal ordinary days followed by one literal ordinary day. However, Bible scholars have shown that this commandment “does not use analogy or archetypal thinking but that its emphasis is ‘stated in terms of the imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed.’”20 In other words, it was to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest, just as God worked for six literal days and rested for one.”

Evolutionary scientists claim the fossil layers over the earth’s surface date back hundreds of millions of years. As soon as one allows millions of years for the fossil layers, then one has accepted death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering before Adam’s sin.

The Bible makes it clear24 that death, bloodshed, disease, thorns, and suffering are a consequence of sin.25 In Genesis 1:29–30, God gave Adam and Eve and the animals plants to eat (this is reading Genesis at face value, as literal history, as Jesus did in Matthew 19:3–6). In fact, there is a theological distinction made between animals and plants. Human beings and higher animals are described in Genesis 1 as having a nephesh, or life principle. (This is true of at least the vertebrate land animals as well as the birds and fish: Genesis 1:20, 24.) Plants do not have this nephesh—they are not “alive” in the same sense animals are. They were given for food.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c002.html

The following is a VERY key point made to refute the ‘day = long ages’ argument

“If the days of creation are really geologic ages of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. The effort to define “days” as “geologic ages” results from an erroneous approach to Scripture—reinterpreting the Word of God on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.”

So, if ‘Day means long ages’ then species must have been alive for billions of years before man and woman came on the scene because we know there was no spirit death (or breath of life death) before the fall

“To understand the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, is used in the context of Scripture. Consider the following:

A typical concordance will illustrate that yom can have a range of meanings: a period of light as contrasted to night, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, or a year.

A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon8 (a dictionary) has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom—but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.”

A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day.9 Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?10

Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning”11 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?12

In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.13

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.”14 Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days.

There are words in biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.15 Alternatively, the days or years could have been compared with grains of sand if long periods were meant. “

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days


1,131 posted on 07/01/2009 8:28:49 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson