|
Post by Lynnet on Mar 13, 2004 23:13:34 GMT -5
Light naturally has a constant speed, I believe, however it has been slowed and stopped briefly in laboratory experiments. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/12/11/frozenlight.advance.ap/index.html <--News link from back in December)
There is a fine line between expressing our views and putting people down for simply doing the same...Outright name-calling clearly crosses that line.
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 13, 2004 23:23:43 GMT -5
I'd like to begin by thanking cypris for proving his superior knowledge by spewing some of the most widely known scientific ideas and having an uncle who happens to be a scientist (of some sort... unless he is some super scientist that specializes in everything! that would be so cool....) As for the speed of light? There is a growing number of physicists that suggest it may not be a constant after all. Considering Relativity doesn't work unless you're talking uber huge scale, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear that photons act funky on the quantum level like every other particle. I do not agree with the idea Joel suggested that the speed of light has ben slowing down; I merely put forth another theory involving the speed of light. Science isn't all inclusive. If it were, there would be no scientists today, because they would be doing redundant experiments if we already knew everything there was to know about our universe. What I'm saying is, science can be and very often is either wrong, or can be improved upon with more data and observation. The Earth has been hypothesized to be round since the Greeks, but they were after the old testament was written. I'm curious to see where the Bible mentions the Earth being round, though (I don't recall any such references to the Earth's shape from Genesis). The church did deny much scientific knowledge gained during the middle ages up through even the early 20th century, a lot of the time for silly reasons. I don't believe the Catholic church officially recognized the fact of the Earth being round until the 1930s (probably just an oversite by someone, but it is still somewhat humorous). Anyway... be nice. I started off on the wrong foot with Joel, but found him to be quite knowledgeable when it comes to what he believes and I was forced to let go some of my prejudices against Christians. One of the rules of this section of the forums is no bashing/flaming of someone based on what they believe. Feel free to bash their beliefs (that goes for both sides ), but try to stay away from personal attacks such as name calling... (I'm not innnocent of this myself, but I've cut back a great deal)
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 14, 2004 15:03:07 GMT -5
i know there are some better verse which say it more obviousely but here is one of the verses about the shape of the earth Isaiah 40:22 ill look for some more
i should also include with this how engineers are amazed when reading the shap of noahs arc and how it was made perfect for its size and weight
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Mar 14, 2004 18:44:07 GMT -5
Ah yes, it makes reference to the Earth as a circle... whether that means they knew it was round or whether they simply saw that the sky was in the shape of a dome and thought the earth was a flat circle... that's not clear. Oh, wasn't sure where to put this, but thought it somewhat interesting... check out Matt 1:1 through 1:16. Apparently Jesus isn't really the decendant of King David and therefore also not the decendant of Abraham. It was Joseph, not Mary, who was the direct male line decendant of those two, so in order for Jesus to be a decendant he'd have to have been Joseph's actual (not adopted) son. That would blow apart the whole God + Mary = Jesus deal... so in conclusion, Jesus is not the decendant of Abraham as claimed by the bible.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 14, 2004 19:08:21 GMT -5
i would also like to add that the arc could not have supported it self. the size was to great and the pressure of the water on the hull would have caused it to collapse. also there is alot on how many animals were actually on the ship. discovery did a great presentation on it a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 9:01:38 GMT -5
Oh, wasn't sure where to put this, but thought it somewhat interesting... check out Matt 1:1 through 1:16. Apparently Jesus isn't really the decendant of King David and therefore also not the decendant of Abraham. It was Joseph, not Mary, who was the direct male line decendant of those two, so in order for Jesus to be a decendant he'd have to have been Joseph's actual (not adopted) son. That would blow apart the whole God + Mary = Jesus deal... so in conclusion, Jesus is not the decendant of Abraham as claimed by the bible. In the Bible days it was common to trace lines through the male so thats why it is trace through Joseph. However is you read the begining of Luke you will find the geneology of Jesus which is traced through Mary. Both Mary and Joseph are decendants of David, Abraham, and Adam
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 9:02:32 GMT -5
Id like to see some information that you are talking about with the Arc, is there a website or book i can read about this?
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 9:16:22 GMT -5
looks like i am wrong, here is some smart people answering my comment....... As the Ryrie Study Bible edition of the NASB notes on Isaiah 40:22, the phrase "He [the Lord] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" ... "allows for the concept that the earth is a sphere". The NASB actually translates the Hebrew word chugh as "vault" rather than circle, but circle is more the idea (cf. Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27 - same word). This quote from Ryrie is, to my thinking, really well put. Commentators and critics are probably right in seeing this "circular vault" above us as phenomenological, that is, the dome-like appearance of the night sky, for example, really does look like an enclosing "circular vault" on a brilliantly clear night (as anyone who has ever seen a cloudless west Texas night sky can testify). In this, the Lord's use of inspired writers of the Bible seems to me to be about as perfect as anyone could imagine. For while speaking of the earth as "flat" would clearly be wrong (even if it agreed with contemporary secular ideas), on the other hand to actually describe the earth as a ball, globe or sphere would probably have strained the credulity of the audience of that time (and unnecessarily so - there was no spiritual advantage to be gained by imparting this particular piece of "scientific" information). .......being wrong sucks
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 16, 2004 17:38:53 GMT -5
donno where u could find the arc thing, check the discovery page arch hives it should be there somewhere but simply the size and the materials used would not work, if u take even a base lever physics class you would know that. the materials to build a ship that size that would float simply did not exist that long ago. also i would liek to add it was not common at all for family lines to be traced by the male almost at all back then, you always know who the mom is because the kid is birthed by them but the father was a gray area.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Mar 16, 2004 21:29:15 GMT -5
yeah im going to have to diasagree with you about the family line, check with anyone who studies the first century and israel under the greek control, the male was the head of the household and he was the one considered important leader, they almost always traced it through him. i have never seen any information saying they traced it through the woman commonly
ill look into noah more
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 16, 2004 21:46:49 GMT -5
the male was the leader and the important part of the house hold but it was still a matriarcle society in the home the wife was valued as the mother of the children and the only one who could actually be proven as the parent so yes the male line was important but the actual line was thrugh the females as far as early law and the sort was concerned. my modernization in asia teacher was a total womens history type of person and knows everything there is to know on that if u wanna take it up with her feel free but i distinctly remember that class and noted it but to besure i will ask her tomorrow and see if she can show me something on it.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Apr 6, 2004 20:18:00 GMT -5
since we come from animals they are just as equal as we are, we have just evolved into a different creature then them, no one is above or below, therefore it is wrong to eat animals
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on Apr 6, 2004 21:25:32 GMT -5
Non-huma animals are not sentient, for one thing. For another, if we are just animals, which we are, then it is not wrong for animals to eat other animals to stay alive: it is done all the time in nature.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Apr 7, 2004 5:36:44 GMT -5
I donno trhat we are arguing the mind and if animals are sentient or not but that aside we are animals and life forms like everything else on this plantet whether we act like it or not. that said animals do survive off of each other and that is the way life works, and we as humans are omnivores and eat both plants and animals so not only is it normal and right but it is natural and expected.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Apr 7, 2004 14:26:55 GMT -5
so why is it so wrong to eat other humans
|
|