Have we lost the faith of our fathers?

[Stravinsk]

It's not the names, although those names became famous because their work achieved the pinnacle status of "theory" by brutal peer review, but it is the fact that their theories work so well, explain how things work and make predictions that agree with observation. I invite you to learn some physics, some mathematics, try to leave your prejudices against authority behind, and see what science actually has to say about the natural world.

Mark. Sigh. Oh Mark.

As far as I know, dark matter, as a hypothesis to explain the movement of stars within galaxies, was after Einstein's time. You see, stars revolve about their galactic centers faster than can be explained by observable matter. Therefore additional unseen matter has been postulated, to account for gravitational forces need to explain the movement of stars within galaxies.

Your posted link is an interesting development in the theory of gravity. It indicates that our understanding of gravity is still in its infancy, and that our work is still ahead of us to understand this force of nature.

Re: Red Text Only humans with access to special advanced technology like the Hubble Telescope can observe this phenomena. Otherwise - we have to rely on our Labcoat Scientists to do the observing and postulating for us. But we get lots of pictures from NASA. None of which can be verified with our measly night seeing devices. But they wouldn't lie to us, now would they? Multi billion dollar budget...telling us all the secrets of the universe that only they can see? No no...can't see any agenda in not being completely forthright and truthful.

Re: bold text (blue colored). All those gravitational forces STILL not completely understood enough to understand everything. Oh, sigh. Gotta give em more money, I guess. Eventually, right?

Taken from thread "Supercomputer comes up with a profile of dark matter" in the Science and technology thread.

 

[MarkFL]

Mark. Sigh. Oh Mark.

I take it you reject my invitation to get acquainted with science? Once you learn a bit about it, you will see how extremely unlikely a "vast scientific conspiracy" is. Science is our best, most reliable path to the truth...it is a self-correcting process that has arguably benefited mankind more than any other endeavor.

All those gravitational forces STILL not completely understood enough to understand everything. Oh, sigh.

It's interesting that you would say that about gravity (a rich theory that explains a great deal, even though we do not yet have a quantum theory of gravity), yet will eagerly swallow everything the flat-Earthers would feed you without any kind of science, models, or understanding of how it supposedly works. Why would you reject science because it can't explain everything, yet accept something that explains nothing? :dunno:

You're too busy looking for conspiracies to see the beauty of what mankind already knows.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Instead, in many parts of the so called "free society" - teaching creationism, intelligent design and any other model than the heliocentric model is not in the "choices" at all.

Unless children are home-schooled. But the system is not set up to allow that to happen for the majority of the population. You get a state school education with all the benefits/consequences of considerable brainwashing whatever the State thinks is best. But it's a "free society", because we say it is.

Anybody can teach whatever fanciful explanations of the world's current state of existence that they like but not in the state funded schools. Teach Hindu or Animist mythology if it pleases. Do it at home, or in a school privately funded.

 

[Stravinsk]

I take it you reject my invitation to get acquainted with science? Once you learn a bit about it, you will see how extremely unlikely a "vast scientific conspiracy" is. Science is our best, most reliable path to the truth...it is a self-correcting process that has arguably benefited mankind more than any other endeavor.

Which science would that be? The kind of "science" that Copernicus used when coming up with the Heliocentric model? Because Mark - that wasn't science. He had an agenda. A very unscientific one. One that makes you think you orbit the sun and that we are spinning around a vast galaxy of stars...

That only big multi-billion dollar funded space agencies like NASA can see...or their partners in crime. No average citizen can see all the things they describe - not with the naked eye and not with any telescope I'm aware of that one could purchase.

So you have to trust them. That's NOT science mark. That's - FAITH.

And you know what else - not only is it faith - it's BLIND FAITH. You can't verify for yourself what they say they see. You can't do it independently. You have to trust them and the images they provide completely. Flipping super scary. They could tell you anything. A horde of aliens was coming our way - and since you trust them implicitly, and it is part of your religion of anti-religion - then they are basically your gods.

The sad thing is that you would actually call that blind faith science. That is what is truly sad.

It's interesting that you would say that about gravity (a rich theory that explains a great deal, even though we do not yet have a quantum theory of gravity), yet will eagerly swallow everything the flat-Earthers would feed you without any kind of science, models, or understanding of how it supposedly works. Why would you reject science because it can't explain everything, yet accept something that explains nothing? :dunno:

You're too busy looking for conspiracies to see the beauty of what mankind already knows.

The flat earthers and others are showing things that can be proven in the real world. I've already explained what I believe about gravity - it is a combination of density, buoyancy and aerodynamic drag (when in the air). Those are properties that can be manipulated but otherwise the thing you think of gravity actually contradicts itself. It supposedly holds us to the ground while also making things orbit us. Tesla rejected the theory and also Einstein's theory. What - you think he swallowed everything he heard like you assume I do? How nice of you to be so condescending and so dismissive at the same time of the genius who gave us not only the Tesla coil but many other inventions including alternating current. But oh I forgot...Tesla's words affirm a creation - and Atheists believe everything banged from nothing because of gravity. Load of.

 

[Stravinsk]

Anybody can teach whatever fanciful explanations of the world's current state of existence that they like but not in the state funded schools. Teach Hindu or Animist mythology if it pleases. Do it at home, or in a school privately funded.

So you, as a Christian believe the current Godless model of a big bang of nothing exploding into the universe should be taught in public school to the exclusion of everything else?

Hint. Throw away your bible. You don't need it. Your beliefs already mock it - it's core.

I suggest you also reconsider your title.

 

[MarkFL]

Which science would that be? The kind of "science" that Copernicus used when coming up with the Heliocentric model? Because Mark - that wasn't science. He had an agenda. A very unscientific one. One that makes you think you orbit the sun and that we are spinning around a vast galaxy of stars...

That only big multi-billion dollar funded space agencies like NASA can see...or their partners in crime. No average citizen can see all the things they describe - not with the naked eye and not with any telescope I'm aware of that one could purchase.

So you have to trust them. That's NOT science mark. That's - FAITH.

And you know what else - not only is it faith - it's BLIND FAITH. You can't verify for yourself what they say they see. You can't do it independently. You have to trust them and the images they provide completely. Flipping super scary. They could tell you anything. A horde of aliens was coming our way - and since you trust them implicitly, and it is part of your religion of anti-religion - then they are basically your gods.

The sad thing is that you would actually call that blind faith science. That is what is truly sad.




The flat earthers and others are showing things that can be proven in the real world. I've already explained what I believe about gravity - it is a combination of density, buoyancy and aerodynamic drag (when in the air). Those are properties that can be manipulated but otherwise the thing you think of gravity actually contradicts itself. It supposedly holds us to the ground while also making things orbit us. Tesla rejected the theory and also Einstein's theory. What - you think he swallowed everything he heard like you assume I do? How nice of you to be so condescending and so dismissive at the same time of the genius who gave us not only the Tesla coil but many other inventions including alternating current. But oh I forgot...Tesla's words affirm a creation - and Atheists believe everything banged from nothing because of gravity. Load of.

Wow, you have a crapload of white space in your posts...I have a vB product that would cure you of that.

Prevent Post Formatting Abuse

See, you continue to make my point regarding your lack of understanding of what science is, and what it explains. I have already answered your questions, but you ignore it and continue to ignorantly hold up things like buoyancy as proof gravity is a myth. Such a statement clearly demonstrates you know very little about physics, what it explains and how it goes about explaining it. Then, armed with scant knowledge of science, you then dismiss it in favor of a model with nothing behind it. That's staggering.

We could say that we will just have to agree to disagree, that neither of us is going to change the mind of the other...but you see that's not quite true. You could change my mind if you had anything to back the flat-Earth assertion, but your mind is unchangeable, even though all the evidence you need to do so is readily available. However, you shun it, citing conspiracy. That's your choice.

 

[Stravinsk]

Wow, you have a crapload of white space in your posts...I have a vB product that would cure you of that.

Prevent Post Formatting Abuse

See, you continue to make my point regarding your lack of understanding of what science is, and what it explains. I have already answered your questions, but you ignore it and continue to ignorantly hold up things like buoyancy as proof gravity is a myth. Such a statement clearly demonstrates you know very little about physics, what it explains and how it goes about explaining it. Then, armed with scant knowledge of science, you then dismiss it in favor of a model with nothing behind it. That's staggering.

I know what real science is, Mark. It works out on paper, in the math that you love - but it also works out in our world. The world you believe you live in was created by a person who wanted to overthrow GeoCentrism and replace it with the Sun. In his own words:

Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe.

“The Pythagorean teaching (of heliocentrism) was founded upon hypothesis and it is not necessary that the hypothesis should be true, or even probable. The hypothesis of the movement of the earth is only one which is useful to explain certain phenomena, but it should not be considered as an absolute truth.”

~ Nicolaus Copernicus, 1543

And yet it is believed, by the majority. Blind Faith, Mark. That's what you have. Someone else's dream to explain the movement of the heavenly bodies - hammered into us through public education and constant images of the Globe - in news programs, in movies, in popular entertainment (especially science fiction).

NASA, with all their provably fake images and much of their provably fake videos hasn't shown it either - because they are liars and the truth is being covered up by them.

We could say that we will just have to agree to disagree, that neither of us is going to change the mind of the other...but you see that's not quite true. You could change my mind if you had anything to back the flat-Earth assertion, but your mind is unchangeable, even though all the evidence you need to do so is readily available. However, you shun it, citing conspiracy. That's your choice.

On spherical trigonometry alone and clear observation of a plane from high distances, we have already proven that given the current circumference of the so called "globe" that we live on is false. From up high, from between mountains, across vast expanses of land and so on - it is flat. The so called "curvature" is missing everywhere to be seen except in fish eye lenses and fake NASA footage.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you, as a Christian believe the current Godless model of a big bang of nothing exploding into the universe should be taught in public school to the exclusion of everything else?

Hint. Throw away your bible. You don't need it. Your beliefs already mock it - it's core.

I suggest you also reconsider your title.

I don't worry much about how the universe came into being. Big bang or fiat creation are both irrelevant to me. But when I look at evidence then the big bang has much to recommend it. I could take the view that fiat creation was accomplished by a nice big bang. If your faith is entirely tied to the holy scriptures and loss of a small point means loss of faith then you and I have very different views of faith and the bible. For me the bible is revelation given by God to help the faithful come to maturity in Christ. Christ is the corner stone of the faith and the bible is analogous to a user manual. But Christ is not so obscure that he is incomprehensible without the manual. Faith comes from the message that God gives in Christ. Faith does not come from reading the bible even though reading the bible helps to engender and build faith. Christ has to remain the centre and the life of Christian faith. The bible can never take his place.

 

[MarkFL]

I know what real science is, Mark. It works out on paper, in the math that you love - but it also works out in our world. The world you believe you live in was created by a person who wanted to overthrow GeoCentrism and replace it with the Sun. In his own words:

Finally we shall place the Sun himself at the center of the Universe.

“The Pythagorean teaching (of heliocentrism) was founded upon hypothesis and it is not necessary that the hypothesis should be true, or even probable. The hypothesis of the movement of the earth is only one which is useful to explain certain phenomena, but it should not be considered as an absolute truth.”

~ Nicolaus Copernicus, 1543

And yet it is believed, by the majority. Blind Faith, Mark. That's what you have. Someone else's dream to explain the movement of the heavenly bodies - hammered into us through public education and constant images of the Globe - in news programs, in movies, in popular entertainment (especially science fiction).

NASA, with all their provably fake images and much of their provably fake videos hasn't shown it either - because they are liars and the truth is being covered up by them.



On spherical trigonometry alone and clear observation of a plane from high distances, we have already proven that given the current circumference of the so called "globe" that we live on is false. From up high, from between mountains, across vast expanses of land and so on - it is flat. The so called "curvature" is missing everywhere to be seen except in fish eye lenses and fake NASA footage.

Yes, more conspiracy. Have fun with that!

 

[Stravinsk]

Yes, more conspiracy. Have fun with that!

This from a person that admittedly would not bother to even look at much less refute any of the points in the thread I brought up in the news section regarding their fakery.

Thanks for showing us what the word willfully ignorant means. It stems from the word "ignore" - and implies a willful state, not just lack of knowledge. But purposely shutting the whole possibility out. I can give you provably fake images from the NASA website and your bias will either be to dismiss them or excuse them - but most likely it will be dismissal because they form a major part of the Atheist religion of godlessness.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't worry much about how the universe came into being. Big bang or fiat creation are both irrelevant to me. But when I look at evidence then the big bang has much to recommend it. I could take the view that fiat creation was accomplished by a nice big bang. If your faith is entirely tied to the holy scriptures and loss of a small point means loss of faith then you and I have very different views of faith and the bible. For me the bible is revelation given by God to help the faithful come to maturity in Christ. Christ is the corner stone of the faith and the bible is analogous to a user manual. But Christ is not so obscure that he is incomprehensible without the manual. Faith comes from the message that God gives in Christ. Faith does not come from reading the bible even though reading the bible helps to engender and build faith. Christ has to remain the centre and the life of Christian faith. The bible can never take his place.

The Christ you affirm affirmed the Creation account that you say doesn't matter - and you admittedly favor it's Omission in public schools.

Regarding the general theory of GeoCentrists - my faith is shared by all the major religious systems of old - including Biblical Christianity and Judaism. The universe circles this plane. We are not hurdling through it being tugged in different directions at millions of miles an hour - being a mere spec of nothingness in a Godless big bang of nothing exploding into everything because of Gravity. It's a load of horse manure.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Christ you affirm affirmed the Creation account that you say doesn't matter - and you admittedly favor it's Omission in public schools.

Regarding the general theory of GeoCentrists - my faith is shared by all the major religious systems of old - including Biblical Christianity and Judaism. The universe circles this plane. We are not hurdling through it being tugged in different directions at millions of miles an hour - being a mere spec of nothingness in a Godless big bang of nothing exploding into everything because of Gravity. It's a load of horse manure.

Do you really think that geocentricism is the fulcrum on which one's destination turns?

 

[Rens]

This from a person that admittedly would not bother to even look at much less refute any of the points in the thread I brought up in the news section regarding their fakery.

Thanks for showing us what the word willfully ignorant means. It stems from the word "ignore" - and implies a willful state, not just lack of knowledge. But purposely shutting the whole possibility out. I can give you provably fake images from the NASA website and your bias will either be to dismiss them or excuse them - but most likely it will be dismissal because they form a major part of the Atheist religion of godlessness.

Willfully ignorant is about not seeing the earth is old and rejecting the evidence of the flood of Lucifer GAP theory says.
I don't know what that text means. Then YEC-ers would be willfully ignorant because there's proof of ice ages and that the earth is old???
I don't think it matters much if people think the earth is round or flat or 6000 years old or billions. If God spoke and then created a big bang, great, if not, great.

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you really think that geocentricism is the fulcrum on which one's destination turns?

Geocentrism is central (not implying a double pun here) to a belief in a Creator, and most importantly - the EVIDENCE of a Creator. Unlike the Scientism Mark believes in - we are not just mere specs of dust, ultimately worthless chances of stardust that somehow by blind chance evolved from goo eventually to apes then to humans in a stupid dumb throwaway galaxy. We have inherent worth as humans. That is not egoism - it is actually the opposite because it says that every single human being on this plane has worth - BECAUSE they are human and part of a specifically designed Creation.

The faith Mark has is a sort of Scientism that ultimately places faith in people and unproveable theories. Those people, at the moment, are the ones providing all the marvelous pictures of the galaxies that we, mere humans cannot hope to see except through faith in their pictures, in their observatories etc. Not you and not me with any instrument available to us personally can verify the claims of "space bodies" like NASA and their counterparts show us. Ultimately - one just has to take their word for it. That is super scary in an of itself. Because what if they had an agenda for you? They play on human emotion and desire through fictionalized entertainment and ingenious marketing techniques not only within that entertainment but also everywhere else around us. They sell us back what is important in life through marketing it in materialism.

I believe they have an agenda. It is to blind the masses to the Creation they live in through lies about it and to have them become slaves to materialism that promises everything but gives nothing. In that, they have already largely succeeded. We are large tax farms worshiping their idols and their corporations and the money it takes to attain what they provide within it.

 

[MarkFL]

Nigel Barber writes that Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038.

By "defeat," he means that point in time at which the world will switch over to being majority atheist. I have no idea about the soundness of his assertions, but I felt it might provide interesting reading pertaining to the topic of this thread. He cites as the key reason for the increase in secularism:

• As people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.

 

[MarkFL]

...I don't think it matters much if people think the earth is round or flat or 6000 years old or billions...

It matters if we want an informed population. People who believe things that are known to be untrue probably shouldn't be in any positions of authority, or able to influence political policies, and good decisions come from being well-informed. The population needs to be well-informed if they are to elect those who are well-informed into positions of power. An uninformed population will more likely lead to bad leadership *cough*Trump*cough*.

 

[Stravinsk]

Willfully ignorant is about not seeing the earth is old and rejecting the evidence of the flood of Lucifer GAP theory says.
I don't know what that text means. Then YEC-ers would be willfully ignorant because there's proof of ice ages and that the earth is old???
I don't think it matters much if people think the earth is round or flat or 6000 years old or billions. If God spoke and then created a big bang, great, if not, great.

Regarding the bold, especially the last sentence, it actually does matter. If you are taught by someone to disregard your own senses and logic in favor of a fostered opinion that is considered authoritive, but nevertheless does not make sense to you, you will live in a state of cognitive dissonance with regards to that and be easier to control. It's easier to fool you. Done enough, it becomes extremely easy to fool you.

With regard to origins, it matters a whole lot. Mark's religion of Scientism (not Science) places humanity into a scum pool that has no inherent worth - a product of blind chance - goo that becomes human but is ultimately just dumb luck with no inherent worth. Morals are fostered, but ultimately they are secondary because in the end you are a bit of space dust. No inherent worth. You are nothing to God. And what's more - God, if He created a big bang that blindly created us and a thousand other galaxies must not really even care. Who are we to Him? Important? Relevant? Of intrinsic worth? No - we are just blind chance and it doesn't matter.

That's what you are saying - if his view on this doesn't matter. But Science enthusiasts can do some awesome equations and we look up to them. Have no doubt, I am Mark's biggest enemy here. I stand directly opposed to his beliefs, and so far it looks like I am the only one.

 

[Stravinsk]

It matters if we want an informed population. People who believe things that are known to be untrue probably shouldn't be in any positions of authority, or able to influence political policies, and good decisions come from being well-informed. The population needs to be well-informed if they are to elect those who are well-informed into positions of power. An uninformed population will more likely lead to bad leadership *cough*Trump*cough*.

Known to be untrue.

Let me ask you something Mark. Take a look at the following picture. What is it and what do you think you know about it?

 

[Lamb]

[*]As people become more affluent, they are less worried about lacking for basic necessities, or dying early from violence or disease. In other words they are secure in their own existence. They do not feel the need to appeal to supernatural entities to calm their fears and insecurities.

Strange how I find myself being drawn closer to God even more when He protects my family from danger, disease and gives us more than we need. I ponder about this quite a lot actually. My daughter is very important to me and when He works in her life in ways I can't explain, it makes me so thankful I don't believe in God just because I have insecurities or fears. That's not why I believe at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Known to be untrue.

Let me ask you something Mark. Take a look at the following picture. What is it and what do you think you know about it?

It looks like clouds and the moon in the night sky but if it is really such a photo I cannot tell from the poor quality resolution and the scant information provided by you in your post.

This image, shown below, is more easily identified as the moon in the night sky with clouds.