• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

AveChristusRex

A Mohylite breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
530
250
18
Bible Belt
✟32,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Your position is nonsense, as I already stated.

No, I think you should grow up and realize you know almost nothing. It is true of most 18 year olds.
You can believe my position is nonsense, but why are you appealing to my age? It is not necessary, if my position is nonsense, then no personal comments need to be made to dismiss it, it should be readily apparent. I apologize if I sounded defensive, but would you do me the courtesy to apologize as well?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Slava Ukraini
Mar 11, 2017
19,505
15,006
55
USA
✟378,707.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hoyle admits that the stars affect what occurs in our Sun-Earth system, which is not hard to understand since, in his system, the sun is revolving around the Milky Way at a speed of about 500,000 miles per hour (which is about eight times faster than he believes the Earth is revolving around the sun). If the sun must travel so fast in order to equal the Milky Way’s pull toward the center, then it can be safely said that the mass of stars at the core of the galaxy have a great effect on the sun, and in turn, a great effect on the planets going around the sun. Hoyle, for simplicity’s sake, confined his example to “a star…moderately close to the solar system,” but in reality, there are billions of stars in the universe; and each one, however small, has an effect on our sun-Earth system. As such, the stars must be strategically placed in the universe in order to allow the proper balance of forces to be maintained in the sun-Earth system. No doubt this is implied in such Scriptural passages as Psalm 147:4 [146:4]: “He determines the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names,” or Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars. He who brings out their host by number, He calls them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and by the strength of his power, not one is missing.”

We can draw two more points from the foregoing information. First, since the stars produce forces affecting our sun-Earth system, then it would be logical to conclude that the forces we experience in our locale are, in part, a product of the conglomeration of stellar forces acting upon us. This means that such things as the inverse-square law, centrifugal force, Coriolis force, and any other force or momentum we calculate on Earth must in part be a result of the forces surrounding us from the universe. As Misner, Thorne and Wheeler have stated it: “Mass there governs inertia here” (Gravitation, pp. 543, 546-47, 549. That is, the mass of the stars governs inertia on Earth). For example, although the inverse-square law is normally understood as being the ratio of the mass to the distance of two or more local objects (e.g., sun and Earth), in reality, the formula
1737313658271.png
implicitly includes the mass, force, and distance of all the universe’s stars, as well as the objects in the immediate locale under consideration. A simple way to understand this is: if the universe did not have stars, then
1737313658271.png
would be inaccurate and need to be revised. As Hoyle has noted, even one close star can affect the “center of mass” in our sun-Earth system, thus it is just a matter of understanding the effect of the billions of stars in the universe and applying it to the phenomena of gravity and inertia.

Consequently, modern science is unable to refute the proposition that formula
1737313658271.png
is a product of both the local and the non-local systems due to the fact that it is not been able to explain the cause of gravity. Although the components of
1737313658271.png
appear as if the force of gravity is merely a ratio of mass to distance of the local bodies, since modern science has no explanation for what actually causes gravity and can only tell us that the force increases or decreases depending on mass and distance, it is at a loss to discount the rest of the universe as being an integral part of what causes the increase or decrease of the gravitational force. For example, the two local bodies may merely be disturbances in a sea of gravitational force emanating from the remote regions of the universe that we, in turn, conveniently measure by the formula
1737313658271.png
and which modern science, without knowing any differently, attributes only to the interaction between the two bodies in our local system.

Another facet of the principle that Hoyle brings out regarding the “center of mass” (also known as a “barycenter”) and how it is affected by the stars is that, since, as we stipulated, the stars are precisely numbered and strategically placed in the universe (which coincides with the fact that, according to Genesis 1:1-2, the Earth was the first strategically placed object in the universe), then it follows that this precise alignment of the stars would be in a counterbalancing formation against our sun and planets, situated in such a way as to make Earth the immovable barycenter of the universe. Accordingly, such passages as Job 26:9 [26:7]: “He…hangs the Earth upon nothing,” which indicates that the Earth is suspended in space and not supported in any sense by any other celestial body, would be precisely the case if the Earth were the “center of mass” for the universe. If a hole could be dug to the center of the Earth, the above circumstance would be analogous to placing a baseball at the center where it would be suspended weightless and motionless. Yet gyroscopic laws show that any force that attempts to move the barycenter will be resisted by the entire system, and analogously the Earth will resist any force against it with the help of the entire universe. Just as a small gyroscope will keep a huge oil tanker afloat across the ocean without swaying, so the universe in rotation does the same with the center of mass, the Earth (Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation, New York: W. H. Freeman, 1973, pp. 1117-1119. Misner, et al, already stated much earlier in their book that the CMB had the precise form and intensity expected if Earth were the centerpiece of a blackbody cavity (Gravitation, pp. 764-797). The logical conclusion should have been that the Earth is in the center of the universe and the universe is closed).

Anaximander (d. 547 B.C.) held to the same idea: “The Earth…is held up by nothing, but remains stationary owing to the fact that it is equally distant from all other things” (As obtained from Aristotle’s De Caelo, 295b32, cited in Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations, p. 138. Anaximander, however, understood the Earth to be in the shape of a drum rather than a globe).
Who wrote this?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Slava Ukraini
Mar 11, 2017
19,505
15,006
55
USA
✟378,707.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Does it matter?
It does matter. I see no point in wasting my time with a point by point refutation to someone that is just block quoting it. Block quotes do not require understanding to make.

In school and in my profession quotations with out citations would be considered fraud. Here it is little different.

In the immortal words of the Wikipedia editors: [citation needed].
Could you respond to #2,321?
I will consider it.
 
Upvote 0

Juvenal

Radical strawberry
Feb 8, 2005
385
145
Georgia
✟44,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
The rotation imparts forces to objects near the Earth, analogous to the Coriolis (
1737312999585.png
, where m is the satellite’s mass, ωᵤ is the angular velocity of the universe, and r is the radial distance from the Earth’s center) and centrifugal (
1737313051206.png
, where vᵣ is the radial velocity of the satellite) effects experienced in a rotating reference frame.
That first equation can be derived from mv^2/r, using v = rw, hence m(rw)^2/r = mw^2r, which is actually the "centrifugal" force as implied by the subscript, but missing the factor 1/2, and is directed perpendicular to the surface.

The second is actually the "Coriolis" force as implied by its subscript, but only if the tangential and angular velocities are perpendicular as the magnitude is given by the area of the induced parallelogram. More, the cited scalar form misses the fact the force is directed perpendicular to both.

You've posted equations you clearly don't understand to people who do. Maybe fix that before posting them again, either by studying them well enough to understand them first, or by asking. Some of us teach this sort of thing.
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

A Mohylite breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
530
250
18
Bible Belt
✟32,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You've posted equations you clearly don't understand to people who do. Maybe fix that before posting them again, either by studying them well enough to understand them first, or by asking. Some of us teach this sort of thing.
This is not my work, but im happy to change it, but my position, until it is explain3d to me practically, is steadfast.
 
Upvote 0

Juvenal

Radical strawberry
Feb 8, 2005
385
145
Georgia
✟44,522.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Well, thank you for being kind about it :smile:

You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,565
52,326
Guam
✟5,056,585.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?

Centrifugal is when you get thrown off the merry-go-round, when someone spins it too fast.

Coriolis determines what direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) the water spins in your commode when you flush it, relative to the hemisphere you're in.
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

A Mohylite breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
530
250
18
Bible Belt
✟32,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Centrifugal is when you get thrown off the merry-go-round, when someone spins it too fast.

Coriolis determines what direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) the water spins in your commode when you flush it, relative to the hemisphere you're in.
So if we are in rand mcnally, the water spins backward? :smile:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

A Mohylite breathing with the 'Two Lungs'
Site Supporter
Nov 20, 2024
530
250
18
Bible Belt
✟32,153.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You're welcome. I'd like to get a feel for how much you understand about what you posted. Could you explain what you know about the centrifugal and Coriolis forces in your own words?
Well, to my knowledge, centrifugal force is a pseudo-force coming in a rotating reference frame acting outward from the axis of rotation and is proportional to the mass of the object. It is [again to my knowledge] responsible for counteracting gravitational attraction at certain distances, such as a rotating universe. Im not as knowledgable about Coriolis force as you are, but I believe it is another pseudo-force that appears in rotating reference frames explaining objects in motion relative to the rotating system, causing a deflection that depends on the object's velocity and the angular velocity of the rotation.

Forgive my, as some of your contemporaries have claimed, 18-year-old-ness :tearsofjoy:
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,035
5,303
✟316,738.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have met many real atheists who don't believe in God, that wouldn't even discuss because they really believe there is no god or deities. Totally unlike the way you answer most of the posts written to you.
If they refuse to talk about it, how do you know they are atheists.
How do you know the majority of atheists just want evidence? Did you do a scientific poll?
I would be happy to, but there isn't really a place on this site to post such a thread.
I see the same person driving a bus monday to friday, but surely that is not all he does.
Exactly my point. So why do you say things like, "you are here arguing high and low, like not able to get God out of your head and trying hard not to believe He exists"?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,035
5,303
✟316,738.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course not. What I am suggesting is that from examining the written material it is reasonable to conclude that the founders of the religion believed that something had occurred. The documents don't, in themselves, prove it. They only give us insight into what the authors believed about it.
That only shows that they believed it, not that the belief is true.
No, all you have to assume is that Mohammed and his followers thought Islam is true.
Exactly, and I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I'm just pointing out that records of people believing a religion is true does not mean the religion actually is true.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,035
5,303
✟316,738.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am strict King James only.
However we are talking about historical artifacts.

You are applying a different standard to the Bible. That indicates bias.
So you think that only the KJV counts, but if there's something that isn't in the KJV but it supports your point of view, you've decided that counts too? And let me guess--if there's one of these sources that disagrees with your beleifs, that doesn't count?

That's called "cherry picking." Naughty naughty.
The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of Plato's Dialogues is dated 400 AD, centuries after his death.
Yet you claim as absolute fact the document is a true account of Socrates written by Plato before or shortly after Socrate's death.
Hang on...

Where did I make this claim?
The earliest surviving manuscript (scrap) we have of the NT, written within 5 years of Jesus death, is the 1 Corinthian 15: 3-7 creed. It contains all the essential elements of Christianity. It is close enough and clear enough to qualify as an accurate and factual history of that time frame.
Have you got a source that says it was specifically dated to within five years of Jesus' death? My understanding is that 1 Corinthians was written around 50-60 AD. SOURCE
Call it the Ancient Israeli Times Newspaper. It is not what they believed but what the actual facts were on the ground.
Call WHAT the Ancient Israeli Times Newspaper? The KJV? The bit from 1 Corinthians?
It states, in part: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve,”
I want to know when it was written, not what it says.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,035
5,303
✟316,738.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And that Adam spoke the same English as the King James Bible was written in.
Complete with words taken from French, German, and a whole bunch of different languages that would not exist for centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,648
2,258
44
San jacinto
✟176,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Y

AV: No seeker of God will fail to find him.
Kylie: There are lots of people who sought God but didn't find him.
AV: Ah, but no TRUE seeker of God will fail to find him!
There are no true seekers of God. We have all gone astray.
No, it's a logical fallacy called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is almost inevitable in these sorts of discussions, because we're dealing with worldview issues that boil down to which solution to Agrippa's/Munchaussen's trilema we prefer. Religious folk take the dogmatic/axiomatic and circular solution, while non-religious folk tend to presume upon an infinite regress and circular solution.

The separating point isn't a lack of evidence, but how the data is interpreted into evidence.

And no amount of evidence will convince someone who is determined to be skeptical.
 
Upvote 0

QvQ

Member
Aug 18, 2019
2,344
1,038
AZ
✟138,581.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you think that only the KJV counts, but if there's something that isn't in the KJV but it supports your point of view, you've decided that counts too? And let me guess--if there's one of these sources that disagrees with your beleifs, that doesn't count?
I have motor manuels translated into Chinglish.
Because I understand basic mechanics and the objetive reality of motors, I can usually understand what the procedures are.

I Prefer the King James because I am particularly fond of Elizabethean English.

I can use other translations, the same as I can use a British motor manual, where the hood is a bonnet and a wrench is a spanner the same as I can use a Chinglish translation which defies description as a languge but still...
The basic objective reality is there and the procedures are in all the translations I have seen so far.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,854,565
52,326
Guam
✟5,056,585.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I can understand why you wouldn't debate it.

It would entail having to deal with science-can-take-a-hike miracles.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
6,181
3,155
82
Goldsboro NC
✟232,773.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That only shows that they believed it, not that the belief is true.

Exactly, and I'm perfectly happy to do that.

Likewise, I'm not debating that Christians honestly do believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. I know that Christians believe that, and I'm not debating that.

I'm just pointing out that records of people believing a religion is true does not mean the religion actually is true.
That's what the "Traditional" in "Traditional Christianity" means. Whatever actually happened, if anything, the companions of Christ believed that He died and then rose from the dead. QvQ quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians to that effect, probably the earliest statement we have of it. Scholars of all stripes generally agree that a person named Paul existed and wrote that letter to people in Corinth. Unless you suppose he was pulling their leg, he believed what he wrote and that was the beginning of the traditional belief that has been handed down to this day, that and the writings of others close to the original twelve. The documents themselves don't prove it, they only bear witness to the beliefs of the authors.

Alternatively, one could assert that the letter to the Corinthians was not written by Paul off his own bat but dictated in some way by God, in which case the resurrection is was not just Paul's belief but an objectively true statement. I have never cared very much for that point of view. After all, Christ's commission to us was "Preach the Gospel..."
 
Upvote 0