Moderator: Moderators
We know it moves so at least one, and we know one force is enough to explain the moving weight so lets just say it's one force.arian wrote: Oh yes, .. do you know how many forces (electromagnetic) are present while your doing that?
Not sure what you are trying to get at but sure, these are all ways to test the effect of gravity. What about them?How about this?
Take a very sensitive scale with exactly one pond of weight on it... and whala, proof that the moon is rotating around the earth held by gravity.
Well no. Cartoon can't prove anything. The actual experiments depicted by said cartoons is what proves time dilation.Oh, .. and video this for Creationists like me. I know it works with animated graphics, .. you know like they have the evidence for "time dilation" by one car standing still and a plane going overhead, .. lol. Cartoon can prove anything, even a BB.
The basic part of relativity is simple to understand, what seems to be so funny about that?It's funny, because they claim that the one object standing still while the other which is moving away from it is experiencing the special relativity effects. In fact there is absolutely no way to distinguish which of the two objects is actually moving...
When calibrated to scale so the force of the magnet on the bearings, and the forces between the bearings matches that of the moon, the Earth and the ocean, sure that would prove it. You are not helping your case here are you? You are coming up with ways of proving gravity when your original point is that it's not provable scientifically.Hmm, .. so let's put a bunch of tiny steel bearings under a handkerchief, than take a huge magnet, and slowly move over the handkerchief and see how the magnet pulls up the bearings on the far said of it, .. that should prove the second smaller tide, right?
No idea what you are getting at here, since all of it is based on observation.Hmm again! What is the scientific significant of a story based on "assuming things" (like a massive collision between two large clusters of galaxies millions and millions of LIGHT YEARS away) happening based NOT on observation, but someone's "assumption" that gravity exists and does certain things, but not other "things"?
Sure, we can call it that if you like, since it only happening in your mind and not in reality.And what would we call spending billions of dollars stolen from "dark-skinned sub-human" countries which is then blamed on them for overpopulating and becoming unsustainable, then building thousands upon thousands of other assumptions based on that assumption?
Lunacy, .. religious fantasy.
Sounds like a nail in the coffin for God as a scientific enquiry. Why? What does it sound like to you?Really, what does this sound like: "We can detect something that does not absorb or emit light, millions and light years away but we cannot detect God who is as close to everyone as their mind is", .. huh Bust Nak?
Well there you go. God is supposed to be easily detected according to the Bible, but there is no empirical evidence of his existence. Like I said, a nail in the coffin.Acts 17:27
so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Correction, 1) "BB story" and "evolution" are unrelated and do not serve as support for each other. 2) humans do have a mind, we are evolving mindful animals, namely apes.Oh yeah, the BB story is backed up with another story supported by many cave paintings and a lot of skull and bones and fossils called Evolution, which clearly states that humans no longer have a mind or free will, that we are evolving mindless animals, no different than apes, .. actually we ARE apes, the ones still evolving, .. lol.
Well, that's a privilege one gets when he can come up with empirical evidence for his claims.Like when this Catholic Priest got a Divine Insight from the supernatural realm of our universe Big Banging in nothing 13.75 billion years ago, then expanding to the "size" of infinite, and this is a good enough story to print millions of books on, labeling them science books at that, and billions and billions of much needed dollars on forcing it down every human beings throat...
And that's what you get for failing to provide empirical evidence for your claim. Try learning from the "Catholic Priest" you are referring to, if you want your claims to be accepted.yet God is right there, in your head, your MIND, .. making you an individual, a reasoning, creating intelligent being that separates us from animals, but that obvious fact you deny evidence for!?
With telescopes.First, how would you measure Infinite who has no boarders?
Yes, what of it?Second, .. you Sci-Fientists claim that there is no "outside, no middle" to your universe, yet it is claimed to be expanding exponentially (lol there too) while galaxies collide at the same time.
That's the observable universe you are referring to it, i.e. the part that is small enough for light to cover within the time we have, as opposed the whole universe.Third, .. there is NO OUTSIDE to the universe, so you cannot define a size to it, .. not until a few seconds after the BB where it was measured (in a religious trance) to be first the size of a pinhead, then a grapefruit, than a bowling ball, the Poof! vanished, or fluctuated back into nothing.
Yes, I do remember. What of it?Sci-Fientists are stumped about their existence, they ask: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" because they believe we are IN, and amount TO nothing (+- charge cancels itself out, remember?)
No. It is because they thought it was a suitable punishment for the thieves.Yeah I used to use that same excuse in my younger days about my hand wondering. But she slapped me anyways, .. in my face too not my hand!?
I told her it was my hand, not me, but no, she blamed "me". Isn't that why they cut off thieves hands, because they blame the hand, like you claim the brain creates the mind, right?
Well no, it's not a very good analogy at all.Yes, your brain wonders, especially after meteor showers, tectonic continent floating off, a heavy dinner, etc. can cause that, right? It's like the radio dial hooked to our environment, right? When the continents float off a little, it changes the station, .. our thoughts, .. I get it.
Not sure what you are referring to here by "limiting it to a size." But yes, it's not hard to understand infinity, at least it's not hard for me.What, .. it's not hard to understand Infinite? You guys keep limiting it to a size, how is that understanding Infinite?
Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but sure, our mind can comprehend the infinite. Also the universe may be infinite, like I pointed out earlier.If you even remotely understood Infinite, you would right away find the ONLY example of it, your mind. Your mind is the only thing, actually the only existence that is beyond any "thing", and contains all "things", all the universes you want, and expanding as fast as you want, right there in your mind.
Yes, our brains is where reasoning and dreams and the desire to create comes from.Where do you think reasoning and dreams and the desire to create comes from, .. your brain, .. with your hand sending info to it wanting to make something?
Incorrect. You have been told repeatedly that I do believe I have a mind, one that is the result of "reactions of my brain as it is influenced by my environment and the food I eat."But look, you don't even believe you have a mind, only some chemical reactions of your brain as it is influenced by your environment and the food you eat.
That's another bad analogy. I can speak and see, pretty much the opposite to a black meteor that cannot speak or see.So it's like explaining to a Muslim that this black meteor is just that, not something to worship for it cannot speak or see, just like your brain. All it is is a complex control panel our mind reads off of, and sends info to other parts of the body through.
Well those kinds of mundane miracles don't require any gods.Exactly, we are all walking miracles and don't even realize!
Loaded question cannot be answered. "God-haters" do not deny the mind of man, nor deny man himself or his humanity. Nor do "God-haters" deny the infinite and make it something finite, nor call nothing "not nothing anymore."Why do you think God-haters go all out to deny the mind of man, to deny man himself, his humanity turned to an animal, an ape, a rat!? And deny Infinite and make it something finite and call nothing "not nothing anymore"??
It is clearly a falsehood since I readily affirm that we have a mind and still have no problem denying the great "I AM" that you refer to.Because once they admit they have a mind, the proof of our Infinite, Eternal "I Am" would be undeniable. So they have to constantly change the obvious with fairytales of "long, long time ago before time, .. " oh well, you know the rest.
Well, tried and fail to show...Anyways, as I have shown, "belief in God IS scientific..."
I will agree with you on that much. Where we disagree is which side is using distortions, lies, intimidation and threats. The great thing about science is that empirical evidence will always win.It is a constant battle using scientific distortions, and straight out lies, and have to be there to force other scientists by intimidation and even the threat of death to support these lies.
I think I will stick to the scientific answer rather than your guess. There are many different religions because we are wired by evolution to have a predisposition to see intention where there is none.It is the most difficult thing in the world to deny God, and Satan is working on that 24/7, no rest. Why do you think we have all these different religions huh? It is to keep everyone satisfied, so they don't actually go out there and look for God.
It is time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof/evidence of your claims. Either provide the evidence or withdraw your claims of your supernatural god.RonE wrote: [Replying to post 183 by theStudent]
Why would you say "you already got it"? When you recognize that what you presented is not scientifically credible?theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 173 by RonE]
If this is all you want, you already got it.scientifically credible evidence
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.Actually, where we are is with you having failed to provide evidence to back up your claims of a supernatural, all powerful god who is the "intelligent designer". So there are two options for you, either retract your claims or support them with the evidence I requested.I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.
Perhaps there might be a time when more can be said after a few things are presented.
But for now, we are at a sort of... I don't know... back and forth?
RonE wrote:
I find it interesting that in a topic labeled " Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific" you have yet to respond to my repeated challenges to provide credible scientific proof of your god.
It seems that all you want to do is recreate science to accommodate your god claims. Maybe what you don't realize is that by such recreating of science and the scientific methods used by science you would open up the entire imagination of man, every god, zombie, vampire, witch, & goblin ever imagined by man becomes possible and your god would be closer to the bottom of the list than the top. It is science that shines the light of knowledge on these supernatural claims to be seen for what they are, unsupportable.
These rambling, ranting, preaching posts you've been putting up are an excellent example of what would follow in science's place if you had your way. Can you imagine the logical gibberish what would come from all the other radical extremist cults?
I'm still waiting on your reply to my post 189 seen below:
It is time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof/evidence of your claims. Either provide the evidence or withdraw your claims of your supernatural god.
I'm still waiting for him to address ERV's. Don't even get me started on embryology.Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 212 by RonE]
RonE wrote:
I find it interesting that in a topic labeled " Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific" you have yet to respond to my repeated challenges to provide credible scientific proof of your god.
It seems that all you want to do is recreate science to accommodate your god claims. Maybe what you don't realize is that by such recreating of science and the scientific methods used by science you would open up the entire imagination of man, every god, zombie, vampire, witch, & goblin ever imagined by man becomes possible and your god would be closer to the bottom of the list than the top. It is science that shines the light of knowledge on these supernatural claims to be seen for what they are, unsupportable.
These rambling, ranting, preaching posts you've been putting up are an excellent example of what would follow in science's place if you had your way. Can you imagine the logical gibberish what would come from all the other radical extremist cults?
I'm still waiting on your reply to my post 189 seen below:
It is time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof/evidence of your claims. Either provide the evidence or withdraw your claims of your supernatural god.
CORRECTION;
It should be "WE are waiting on your reply", and we haven't yet seen any.
All we have seen so far are bizarre unsubstantiated religious pseudo-scientific claims.
ERV: Holy Bible Large Print Easy-to-Read Version Blue Softcover‎ on sale at disreputable book dealers near you? EMBRYOLOGY IS A HOAX.. maybe... well MAYBE it is....Neatras wrote:I'm still waiting for him to address ERV's. Don't even get me started on embryology.Blastcat wrote: [Replying to post 212 by RonE]
RonE wrote:
I find it interesting that in a topic labeled " Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific" you have yet to respond to my repeated challenges to provide credible scientific proof of your god.
It seems that all you want to do is recreate science to accommodate your god claims. Maybe what you don't realize is that by such recreating of science and the scientific methods used by science you would open up the entire imagination of man, every god, zombie, vampire, witch, & goblin ever imagined by man becomes possible and your god would be closer to the bottom of the list than the top. It is science that shines the light of knowledge on these supernatural claims to be seen for what they are, unsupportable.
These rambling, ranting, preaching posts you've been putting up are an excellent example of what would follow in science's place if you had your way. Can you imagine the logical gibberish what would come from all the other radical extremist cults?
I'm still waiting on your reply to my post 189 seen below:
It is time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof/evidence of your claims. Either provide the evidence or withdraw your claims of your supernatural god.
CORRECTION;
It should be "WE are waiting on your reply", and we haven't yet seen any.
All we have seen so far are bizarre unsubstantiated religious pseudo-scientific claims.
I am suppose to just take your word for it?theStudent wrote:Oh yes there is.Bust Nak wrote:You've lost me there. Sure there are winners and losers in Rio right now, but that doesn't apply to Christianity, there is no earthy way to know who is winning and who is losing.
In the same way some people on this earth think they know, and in some cases do know, what others don't.
Let me remind you then: "Many people under different names follow the same pattern, including scientist. But what's interested, is that they are not against just any god or religion."I don't know why you think I need help.
And I don't know where I claimed thatscientists are fine with Greek and Roman gods but not okay with the Christian God
If you've done your research then why would you suggest scientists are fine with other god and religion except Judeo-Christian God and religion? Many scientists are Christian and those who reject Judeo-Christian religion for intellectual reasons also reject other religion.I simply made a general statement. It was not specifying any particular gods.
Also I made a suggestion.I have done my research.Gather all their interviews, and listen to them. They do have a god and religion, but not - definitely not the "Judeo-Christian God and religion. Any other god and religion is fine.
No, that's not made up and perfectly fine. That is the view of science you should stick to.I'm so tired of these accusations.
Is this made up?Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasize the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.
The English word scientist is relatively recent—first coined by William Whewell in the 19th century.
Previously, people investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers.
While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others)...
Yes.Are you applying this to the scientists that speak of the creation of the universe, who don't even believe in a God creator?
That's easy - look up any experiment designed to test the second law of thermodynamics. You can do some in your own kitchen without any specialist equipment.Could you provide evidence of this please.
How about I show you to the literature instead? Testing the expansion of the universe isn't exactly something you can do in you own home. Here is an easy to read educational piece to get started on.Where is the empirical evidence?
I'd be happy to see it. Could you show it to me please?
I was trying to explain how Zeus, Hercules and Thor are not supposed to be creator gods, you were comparing apples to oranges when you compared non creator gods to creator gods. Try comparing other creators such as Ptah to God instead.Pardon me?
I don't understand what you just said.
Dualism and Philosophy.Let me know which of these are unaceptable in science...
That is not scientific at all, like I said in my very first response to you, you've crippled yourself by limiting your topic as a scientific enquiry.Whatever the case, we are concerned with truth, and facts, which I have already presented, but will conclude with another example.
...So they are building robots with a "mind" - an "intelligence"...I know one thing for sure.
There is scientific, Biblical, rational and logical evidence, that an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans. Hence, with regard to how life came to be, for sure - God did it.
That is a lot of evidence.
In my opinion, and I am sure I am not alone - the Bible is never used to confirm scientific discoveries and theories. If that were the case, when scientific theories and understandings are changed or adjusted, where would that leave the Bible? It too would have to change - which it doesn't.Neatras wrote:1. The question writers assert, without evidence, that the Bible is used to confirm scientific discoveries and theories.
The so-called evidence that is presented to confirm macro-evolution is not verifiable, solid, or demonstrative. Therefore, it is as many reasonable people call it, faith.Neatras wrote:2. They also assert that evolution is based on faith, and creationism is based on logic and facts.
And as you posted recently in the topic "What does Intelligent Design prove? post #10 ":theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 193 by Neatras]
The so-called evidence that is presented to confirm macro-evolution is not verifiable, solid, or demonstrative. Therefore, it is as many reasonable people call it, faith.
Creation of the universe and the earth, and all life on it, has been demonstrated, and is therefore verifiable, and solidly based on facts. Logical, reasnable, and sensible people are inclined to that evidence.
This time it is you who is shutting their eyes to the evidence and the same goes. The scientific community accepts the evidence of evolution. Do you think that "everyone is out of step but Johnny"?theStudent wrote: No.
The evidence has been demonstrated.
Just because someone shuts their eyes to evidence, does not nullify it.
Yeah this one shockedarian wrote:Bust Nak wrote:
arian wrote:Oh, .. and there is no Infinite either, .. no evidence. Just because we have gazillion galaxies out there does not mean it is IN Infinite.
Actually, we don't know that. The universe could be infinite.
First, how would you measure Infinite who has no boarders?
Second, .. you Sci-Fientists claim that there is no "outside, no middle" to your universe, yet it is claimed to be expanding exponentially (lol there too) while galaxies collide at the same time.
me.Thanks for that verification, and added info.arian wrote:Anyways, as I have shown, "belief in God IS scientific, and unbelief is scientific ignorance which is by denial of millions of scientific observations, and making up millions of fantasies like the BB-Evolution stories and build on them.
