### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - Round fact

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >
41
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: May 10, 2016, 06:31:06 PM »
Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif  The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a  is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.

The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles

42
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a persuasive drawn about velocity diagram of the atmosphere?
« on: May 10, 2016, 06:10:37 PM »
Hello guys.

I wonder is there a persuasive drawn about velocity  diagram of the atmosphere or not. I saw some diagrams about it but no one was persuasive. Because when i ask "is there horizontal force?" then usually answering me as "the friction". But when i ask about "please do the diagram start with land level to the end of the atmospher. "

I want to see the velocity diagram of the atmospher, after that i want to see the diagram of the forces acting to the atmosphere.

Actually it must be easy because we know it is starting with about 1.000 miles / hrs. So;

Show me, then show you.

Draw the diagram and on the diagram show how the atmospher don't difuses to the space.

Thank you.
If you don't accept gravitation and the kinetic theory of gases it would be useless to try to draw any diagram.

But put very briefly, the escape velocity of an object (big like a rocket, or tiny like a molecule) is roughly velocity of 11,200 m/s, but the mean thermal velocity of nitrogen molecules is roughly 500 m/s (a bit lower for oxygen molecules) - much less than the escape velocity, so the molecules cannot escape. They are held by gravity - it's not really a matter of diffusion.

There is a tremendous amount more to it than this. For example the thermal velocity is temperature dependant and is just the average, so a few molecules can have a much higher velocity and occasionally some might escape.

But, the nett result is that very few escape, and the earth can recapture some.

There is a bit on it here: Why wouldn't Earth's atmosphere escape into space?

Intikam always asks for a diagram/picture, he is a visual person, he can't see the picture the words paint, like the rest of us can. Math for him even worse.

Tab A fits into slot B and is locked into place with tab A1. Simple, but for him it needs to drawn out or a photo provided.

43
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: May 10, 2016, 05:56:09 PM »
Actually it says that it's an argument used by Round Earthers that is thought to prove rotundity. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. The very next sentence of your excerpt says "This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to."

Indeed, Rowbotham and other writers say that polaris could be seen at latitudes beyond the equator:

"If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition”

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

44
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism is a handicap of the religions
« on: May 10, 2016, 10:54:06 AM »
Every time I see a baby animal I think about how horrible it is to eat them when they grow up.

That's funny because whenever I see a baby cow my stomach starts rumbling.

Seriously though you should try to get over this. Animals eat other animals, it's a natural part of life.

I think it's more so the fact that those cute little piglets completely trust and rely on you until the day you decide to have pork chops for dinner. A gazelle knows the lion is going to try to it eats ass. We've lulled these wild animals into domestication and this false sense of comfort, so I guess it's more a violation of the trust those cute little piggies have for us that bothers me lol.

Pigs can be dangerous. They are known to kill and eat people. And a pissed off bull, (it does't take much) is well, I've been known to take one step then jump and clear a 6 foot fence. And I'm not alone. Fear is a GREAT motivator at times.

Humans are omnivores. God gave us teeth for ripping and chewing meat. I am NOT about to tell God He got it wrong.

this should be a joke.

did you choose the pig as dangerous animal? so what about the lion the crocodile? or is a lamb is too dangerous?

You might read the entire set of posts you quoted in your response before you decide to pull the "holier than thou" routine. Or do you like going out of your way to take a post out of context?

At any rate I responded about pigs, because pigs and only pigs were the subject of the post I was responding to.

Lambs? I don't recall eating lamb. I do know that lamb is eaten in both the Old and New Testament. What have you got against God and Jesus?

Lamb is my favorite meat. Serve it in vinegar and its heaven on earth. I haven't tasted deer meat though.

I like Mule Deer better than White Tailed Deer. Never tasted Elk. But the best member of the deer family I've eaten is Moose.

45
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: May 09, 2016, 08:43:06 PM »
ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

Oh, say a thousand YEARS of navigation, not to mention almost four thousand years of recored history

46
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: May 09, 2016, 03:59:21 PM »
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.

47
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Transgender Rights
« on: May 09, 2016, 03:57:47 PM »
Won't someone please think of the children.

Thank you.

And I'm done on this thread. Too many freaks here. Scary

48
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Transgender Rights
« on: May 09, 2016, 03:12:53 PM »
What's the point of posting that story?  Are you saying that guy would have gotten away with filming a little girl if he had been transgender, or dressed as a woman?  He wouldn't have.

Seriously? That little girl would not have paid as much attention to what she would thing is as just another female. Do have have kids please. It would be cruel to them

49
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Transgender Rights
« on: May 09, 2016, 02:57:18 PM »
There have beeb several arrests of men claiming to be transgender that were caught filming women.

Let me know how you feel when it happens to your wife, daughter or grand daughter.

I hope these cities are suited into oblivion the it happens in their city.

Filming in a bathroom is illegal for everyone.  Not sure why you think this law makes it easier.  Hell, NC just passed a law that made it easier.  I'll demonstrate.

"Hi, sorry, born a woman.  Can I watch you pee?"

Also, question:
Have you ever BEEN inside a woman's bathroom?  Ever peeked in one when no one was there?
Well I have and let me tell you, there's nothing but stalls and toilets.  No urinals.  In fact, unless a woman undresses by the sink, they aren't going to show anything they won't show when they walk out the door so, pray tell, what were these horrible men filming?

They are filming from under and over the stall walls.

Now tell me how this protects women in changing rooms and locker rooms.
So the gender of the person is irrelevant as they're hidden anyway.  Gotcha.

As for locker rooms, well, what's stopping a man from walking in now?
What's stopping a woman from walking in and taking pictures/video?
Finally:
Same point as before, the North Carolina law requiring people to use their birth gender's "room" means that any man can walk into a woman's bathroom without even changing clothing.

I think the problem here is that you are assuming that it's easy for a man to pretend to gender identify as a woman.  Can they dress up? Sure but they could do that before so it's not really anything different.
But I don't think transgender people make a habit of walking into a bathroom or locker room they can't pass in.  So a transman won't go into the men's locker room if they still have their breasts or they look/sound like a woman.  But they would likely go into the woman's locker room just to avoid the stares.

Plus, the point is to avoid it being illegal if said trans is caught in the "wrong" room.  Filming is still very much illegal regardless of gender.

So letting the fox INTO the hen house is okay. Its only AFTER the fox starts killing the chickens that there is a problem. Got it.

Not a husband, father or grand father are you?

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/26/pennsylvania-man-allegedly-spied-little-girl-public-bathroom-charged-child-porn

That thing between your ears? It has mores uses than just to hold your ears apart or to keep your eyes from rolling down to your toes, if you look up.

50
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Transgender Rights
« on: May 09, 2016, 10:33:40 AM »
There have beeb several arrests of men claiming to be transgender that were caught filming women.

Let me know how you feel when it happens to your wife, daughter or grand daughter.

I hope these cities are suited into oblivion the it happens in their city.

Filming in a bathroom is illegal for everyone.  Not sure why you think this law makes it easier.  Hell, NC just passed a law that made it easier.  I'll demonstrate.

"Hi, sorry, born a woman.  Can I watch you pee?"

Also, question:
Have you ever BEEN inside a woman's bathroom?  Ever peeked in one when no one was there?
Well I have and let me tell you, there's nothing but stalls and toilets.  No urinals.  In fact, unless a woman undresses by the sink, they aren't going to show anything they won't show when they walk out the door so, pray tell, what were these horrible men filming?

They are filming from under and over the stall walls.

Now tell me how this protects women in changing rooms and locker rooms.

51
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism is a handicap of the religions
« on: May 09, 2016, 10:23:53 AM »
Every time I see a baby animal I think about how horrible it is to eat them when they grow up.

That's funny because whenever I see a baby cow my stomach starts rumbling.

Seriously though you should try to get over this. Animals eat other animals, it's a natural part of life.

I think it's more so the fact that those cute little piglets completely trust and rely on you until the day you decide to have pork chops for dinner. A gazelle knows the lion is going to try to it eats ass. We've lulled these wild animals into domestication and this false sense of comfort, so I guess it's more a violation of the trust those cute little piggies have for us that bothers me lol.

Pigs can be dangerous. They are known to kill and eat people. And a pissed off bull, (it does't take much) is well, I've been known to take one step then jump and clear a 6 foot fence. And I'm not alone. Fear is a GREAT motivator at times.

Humans are omnivores. God gave us teeth for ripping and chewing meat. I am NOT about to tell God He got it wrong.

this should be a joke.

did you choose the pig as dangerous animal? so what about the lion the crocodile? or is a lamb is too dangerous?

You might read the entire set of posts you quoted in your response before you decide to pull the "holier than thou" routine. Or do you like going out of your way to take a post out of context?

At any rate I responded about pigs, because pigs and only pigs were the subject of the post I was responding to.

Lambs? I don't recall eating lamb. I do know that lamb is eaten in both the Old and New Testament. What have you got against God and Jesus?

52
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: May 08, 2016, 11:50:50 AM »
You'll do well here with the rest of shallow FE minds incapable of grasping a simple question. Welcome to the site.

Nice attitude. I'm sure you believe you know everything despite your evidence being only hypotheticals you assume to be facts. I do wonder about the feverish insecurity and sadism present in someone who seeks e-fellowship with people - whom he is convinced are possessed with delusional ideas - for the sole purpose of openly mocking them.

Are you on the "coast" of Antarctica?
Have you ever been there to see the view?
Or are you just believing stories you've been told? <---this one is correct, isn't it?

Quote
Does this "someone" have a name, or does he only exist in your imagination?
If he only exists in your imagination, I suggest he cannot "see" anything, including the sun, moon, and any stars.

It show an amazing lack of a basic understanding of the original question posted which started this thread.

It also indicated from the start your hostile anti-science, anti-logic, anti-math, attitude.

But more than all that, it shine the light on your fear the truth doesn't match your fantasy.

Why am I here? I am a writer. I came here to research an out of date concept in the hope of finding out why, in the 21st Century, a group of people can believe something that everyday grade school math so easily proves is impossible.

And you have contributed to the answer. You didn't read the the first post in this thread, or if you did, you ignored it. Your FIRST response was to mock some some un-named observer, then double down with your last post.

The math is not hard, and I have posted several times, links to calculators that will help you, if you can't do geometry.

I have been to Antartica? Nope. Does that mean Antarctic is not real? I have never seen you in person, does that make you not real?

Now stick to the subject in the OP, IF the earth is flat, why can't Polaris,  the 47th brightest star in the night sky, be seen, some 12,000 miles away on the coast of Antartica?

53
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?
« on: May 07, 2016, 06:48:33 PM »
I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

Is this a hypothetical, or are you really going?  If so I'm jealous, that would be awesome to go there!

Can you run 13.1 miles? OF course you can. If I can, anyone can. But the catch? Well the cost of such a trip runs from \$6,990 to \$9690. This does NOT include airfare to Buenos Aires or the race entry fee of \$200.

They are booking tips now for 2017.

Training for a half marathon takes from 12 to 16 weeks, depending on the program you choose.

Expedia lists flight round trip from your location for \$1,303. So the total tip should be from \$8,292 to \$10,993 plus the race entry fee and fun money on board the ship and all the race photos. Figure around \$15k. Which is why I haven't run this race. Retirement is a Politically Correct Term for poor.

54
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: infinite expanding flat earth is right, flat earth map and theory are wrong.
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:38:35 PM »
Round earthers are not welcomed, I recognize you as round earther I won't continue reading your comment, and I hope the moderator will comply and delete your messages.

The earth is flat, it expanding horizontally to infinite and right now it expanding in amazing velocity we can't imagine.
above us endless number of other flat planes that expand, below us endless number of other flat planes that expand infinitely, the firmament is our ceiling and the floor of the upper flat plane.

The moon is a hologram, an hoax from the start of this plane and living creatures(including humanity) something like 400 years ago.

The sun circle us, the sun is like lava,but has boundaries and push by the water in the sky.
the firmament is a glass and that the sand above create in the beginning, the sun has four paths, the summer,the autumn,the winter,the spring.

when it summer the sun has to go long way so there is more day light.

the stars are combination of water and sand and other things I have to recall(maybe that's it).

you can't reach the sun in this plane because the sun is inside the upper plane,it's a disc, that circle inside the glass.

the official map of flat earth society is wrong and deceptive. the north pole is the end of our solar system and the beginning of other solar system.
Antarctica is another.
new Zealand affect by two suns, and also part of usa and Hawaii.

The midnight sun in north pole and south pole is due to uncoordinated suns, but in other times they are very coordinated and partly-coordinated.

Antarctica is a continent, not an ice rim, it possibly as big as it in Mercator projection, but it not encompass the world.

This map is wrong but is much more accurate than the flat earth society map:

this map is distorted like hell, but give much more accurate orientation.

cheers, and please open your mind, don't be cultist like eric dubay.

Your post is an in your face admission you are not interested in reading anything other than those regurgitating you views. FE believers claim to be "Free Thinkers" You post is more about being a sheep.  "Open mind" my backside.

55
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not fly a Remote Control Drone Plane (due south) over Antartica?
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:13:31 PM »
anyway,, so why doesnt anyone do the remote control drone plane over Antartica Due South ?
really.. that would be the icing on the cake !
such a simple idea.
--- because it is impossible.

Try to find a video of a remote contol drone plane flying over the south pole yourself.  You will not find it because nobody has done it..... because it is impossible.... because it does not exist.

The true form of the earth is irrelevent.

In your  completely ignorant and uninformed opinion.

http://www.marathontours.com/index.cfm?pid=10734

56
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Transgender Rights
« on: May 06, 2016, 10:13:09 PM »
There have been several arrests of men claiming to be transgender that were caught filming women.

Let me know how you feel when it happens to your wife, daughter or grand daughter.

I hope these cities are suited into oblivion the it happens in their city.

57
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: May 06, 2016, 09:56:15 PM »
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can't Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.

58
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Veganism is a handicap of the religions
« on: May 06, 2016, 09:42:00 PM »
Every time I see a baby animal I think about how horrible it is to eat them when they grow up.

That's funny because whenever I see a baby cow my stomach starts rumbling.

Seriously though you should try to get over this. Animals eat other animals, it's a natural part of life.

I think it's more so the fact that those cute little piglets completely trust and rely on you until the day you decide to have pork chops for dinner. A gazelle knows the lion is going to try to it eats ass. We've lulled these wild animals into domestication and this false sense of comfort, so I guess it's more a violation of the trust those cute little piggies have for us that bothers me lol.

Pigs can be dangerous. They are known to kill and eat people. And a pissed off bull, (it does't take much) is well, I've been known to take one step then jump and clear a 6 foot fence. And I'm not alone. Fear is a GREAT motivator at times.

Humans are omnivores. God gave us teeth for ripping and chewing meat. I am NOT about to tell God He got it wrong.

59
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the stars above the FE?
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:36:36 PM »
3.000 miles not so far. Think Polaris as sun. When sun becomes far away, then we see it as sunset from ground level. alike polaris is about on the axis the earth. You see it at 90 degree on the top when you on North Pole, and the degree increases when you far away from North pole. At a point Polaris be invisible when you far enough away.

3000 miles IS far when you are talking about viewing it from any distance on the FE. At no point on the FE would Polaris appear LESS than 7 degrees ABOVE the surface. Refraction would at BEST make it appear at not LESS than 6.5 degrees ABOVE the surface. Keep in mind that this if for as far away from the North Pole as you can get. On the Equator the angles would be BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, and refraction would also have a smaller effect.

Try this link. http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html Play with the height of the sun/moon/stars and the distances form right under them  to out as far as the "Ice Wall"  It proves that at night Polaris can be seen from the "Ice Wall." And it proves the Sun would shine on ALL of the FE 24 hours a day.

For the calculation of refraction see; http://wise-obs.tau.ac.il/~eran/Wise/Util/Refraction.html

60
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Separation of Church & Science | Intelligent Design and the Flat Earth
« on: May 06, 2016, 03:18:35 PM »
First and foremost is the fact that the OP is placing limits on God and His Creation to fit the OP's personal view of what he believes it should be. The OP seems... Strike that. IS convinced that God did not then, nor does now, have the power to create the Big Bang. That God is so puny that a small little FE under a small dome is all He is capable of.

Second, the OP, is like Intikam, though more polite in that he hints, rather than getting in your face, that if you don't take the Creation Account word for word you deny God.

Third, the OP forgets that the Creation Account was told to, and written by, people with a very a limited vocabulary. They had no concept of the vastness of Creation, nor were they capable of understanding what it was God was showing them. God reduced it the understanding of the lowest common denominator.

Keeping on with the above point, all one needs do is read the Revelation of John. John was shown further events and did his best to describe them to his readers. I daresay, his descriptions are still unintelligible to the reader, though many have attempt to guess what was described.

Fourth, the OP like many others, past, present and future, have attempted to make science and God into one Being. Religion, or in the OP's case, God, is WHO did it. Science was, is, and always will be HOW it was done.

Which brings us to the the fifth point. Science is not Anti-God. Not even the Atheist Scientist is anti-God, simply because God not provable. One can observe, but there is no experiment, there is no math to prove Him. There never will be. God is about Faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see.

It is clear, science has no part in this.

One more point that needs to be understood, thoughI have doubts the OP will seek to understand.

Humans on a Blue Marble orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy orbiting billions of other galaxies are still special to God, because He STILL created us.

It is sad the OP believes he has to limit God's Creation in order see himself as worthy of God and it misses the point of the New Testament completely.

Open your eyes and LOOK at His Creation. ALL of it. AMAZING

I'm assuming I'm OP, even though a lot of that doesn't seem to correlate to my position whatsoever.

First and foremost there is no limit to the Creator. I never implied that. The implication is that evolution and the big bang are not sound logically. Another important thing worth mentioning, and has been mentioned --i forgive you for not reading all 8 or so pages of this-- is evolution excludes God, and is an alternative to Creation. Creation does NOT exclude evolution, though I'm more inclined to believe that it has not been demonstrated how a single cell can turn into a fish into an ape into a man. Another thing that evolution has absolutely no answer for is the Origin of Life. I've been accused of conflating evolution and origin of life, via stupidity and or malicious intent, repeatedly. However we know this basic tenet of existence: Life comes from other life. There is no answer for that first spark of Life within the confines of Godless modern cosmogony. There is no example of an inorganic compound becoming an INFINITELY and INFINITESIMALLY complex living being, even a single celled organism.

You seem to be a believer in Creation, but you must realize you are at odds with even an atheist scientist, who's personal agenda is to remove God from the equation. You can say he can't be anti-god but isn't that what atheism is in the first place? Agnosticism is maybe what you are referring to, someone that admits they can't prove or disprove God's existence. There is, in my opinion, an active malevolent agenda to condition people into believing life is a meaningless, fleeting, material thing. What better way then to remove God from creation, and teach people they are a lucky accident on a speck in the Universe. This is the implication. This is the accepted dogma. I'm not making this up. It is evolution vs creationism education being debated across the country, even though I went to public school in the North East and evolution was completely and totally taught as a fact.

Of course all of Creation would be precious to the Creator. I do agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that there are possibly thousands, or millions of other planets that have life on it like ours. I don't pretend to be special in that sense. I am strictly bringing to light the agenda in which the Creator is being actively removed from the Creation in society. You should be able to tell by the degradation of values and morals and even the family structure itself just how effective this agenda has been.

Perhaps, though, maybe you missed the intent of this post in the first place. I didn't come here to debate creation/evolution/big bang at all. I came here to discuss the inherent error with trying to debate the shape of the Earth within the confines of the scientific community. As you can see I've been staunchly rebuked, and even attacked personally for my belief in God-- of which I'm in the majority of humanity. To try to discuss the Earth possibly being flat in that same arena is a disaster.

I do, however, want to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the discussion. Discourse and debate are great ways to find the truth of a situation, but not always the best way to come to understand someone. Just because one doesn't believe the same exact things as another, that doesn't make them any less worthy of having a say. If my treatment here is any indication, you can see just how judgemental and close-minded we have become as a society. America in particular was built upon the principle of giving the minority a say in how there life is ran, built upon allowing dissenting voices to be heard, not silencing them.

Of course, I must be trolling if I believed that those principles are dear to our leaders or the general public anymore.

I must apologize for taking so long to reply. I missed the notification sent to me of your response.

Yes you are OP as in Original Poster.

I am a Christian, and I try hard to understand the Bible, I drive my long time friend who is now a Pastor nuts with questions. Questions that even involve this site. Which should point out for the record, that I don't it all. And if I asked my Pastor friend, he would say the same thing.

I do question your 15% of scientist believe in God stat you mentioned in the OP. An admittedly down and dirty internet search indicates the figure ranges from 33% to 41% or  more that twice your figure.

This is a personal observation, and is of course dated. But when I was in school, it was not the Science Teachers that mentioned God or religion. The teachers that went out of their way to slam religion, focusing on Christianity, were Social Studies and Humanities.

Yet in fact, religion and science are two separate studies. As I posted earlier, religion says who and science attempts show how.  There is no reason for either "side" to castigate the other for their views. Science is not evil. It IS just a tool for explaining things. Religion is unprovable, it is faith in things not seen.

You see it though, as do I. Leaving the rainfly off my tent at 10 thousand feet on a clear night and watching the sky... I see God's work. Or watching the sun chase the moon in circles at 3 am in July in a camp west of Nome Alaska. FANTASTIC.

Evolution is a sticking point. But only because each side feel a silly need to prove the other wrong. Science will never find that spark of life. But at the same time  they should never give up the attempt. Leaning is in the journey, not the destination. Religion should not attempt prove science wrong. Science is a faith, it is only an explanation and in my opinion, with evolution a poor one at that. Too many missing parts and far too long a timespan between them.

I am not saying evolution is Biblical. But there are some interesting parallels  between the two. The Bible says life started in the sea. So does evolution. Both agree in as to what life appeared in what order.

I think the sticking point is WHO started it, not how He did it, and that means digging in our heels and not listening to what is really being explained, for BOTH sides.

The Big Bang does not belittle God. That it was some 14 billion years ago does not take anything away from God's word. What does take away God's word is our foolish need to place limits on what God did and why He did it.

The Big Bang is awesome. Black Holes, Super Novas, Comets, ALL of it, AWESOME. That we were created with stuff of stars, SUPPER AWESOME.

A limitless God. I got nothing I say to describe that.

And I appreciate that unlike another you don't call others Satanist because we believe in a globe and a vast universe. I think that if you can come to understand the different functions of religion and science, you will come to see that, the political rhetoric aside Science is not against you or me or anyone else.  It is like the gun issue. Guns don't kill. PEOPLE do. Science is not anti-God, some of the PEOPLE who happen to be Scientist are.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >