GOD of the BIBLE, is The CREATOR

[?Impact]

Their belief system provides them so many benefits and costs me nothing.

Once their belief system forces itself into influencing public policy and demands to be taught and mislabelled "science" in our schools, then it does cost us a lot. We have freedom of religion, but keep the faith out of the public square or it will be debated and exposed for the foolishness that it is. I don't go into anybody's Church, Temple, Synagogue, or Mosque and demand to be heard; keep the fairy tales where they belong.

[overthere]

Once their belief system forces itself into influencing public policy and demands to be taught and mislabelled "science" in our schools, then it does cost us a lot. We have freedom of religion, but keep the faith out of the public square or it will be debated and exposed for the foolishness that it is. I don't go into anybody's Church, Temple, Synagogue, or Mosque and demand to be heard; keep the fairy tales where they belong.

It costs me nothing in my schools either. Every publicly funded school here has two certainties: the mandated provincial curriculum must be taught, and it must be taught by professional teachers certified and licensed by the province. Beyond that, any parent can send any child to any school they wish in the province at no cost, with the caveat that there must be room in the school after local kids are registered first.

Beyond the mandatory govt curriculum, schools can choose from a wide variety of curriculum items, and they do. If you object strongly to any curriulcum, be it secular or religious, you can easily send your kid elsewhere. As a taxpayer, it does not cost me any more or less either way.

[?Impact]

Beyond the mandatory govt curriculum, schools can choose from a wide variety of curriculum items, and they do. If you object strongly to any curriulcum, be it secular or religious, you can easily send your kid elsewhere. As a taxpayer, it does not cost me any more or less either way.

It cost you a bundle more in the long run if that school produces ignorant people in industry and public policy.

[eyeball]

But how are you threatened by the idea or the people, being an advanced thinker immersed in the scientific method? Instead of intolerance for the foolishness of others, how about a little love brother? I think that is a better investment of my time and energy, rather than attacking what I acknowledge is quite silly.

Deluded ideas put into action can certainly be a threat. Like not vaccinating your kids for example. I can't help but feel that much of the propensity for deluded thinking in the world is due the deep respect that religion is afforded.

The whole 'act of faith' serves a major purpose for believers. Their belief system provides them so many benefits and costs me nothing. I know folks who are comforted at times of grief, who feel they belong to something with people that truly care about them, that gain confidence in themselves thinking that the unanswerable has been answered. Who am I to squat over all that helps them and go out of my way to take a giant shit on their world? It costs me nothing to just let them go, and join me in exercising choice.

I understand what you're saying and I didn't say shit on anyone I merely said there is a cost.

[Scott Mayers]

Though it's an eye-roller........what is there that you've posted that has to be challenged?

You didn't address the point of the OP at all. Your rebuttal is out of whack! It's irrelevant!

You missed the whole point.

Cite me an ancient book that contains at least 10 claims/declarations that were later proven by science. Be specific.

Then, we'll talk.

Right now, we're still with science since I'm showing that the Creator has intimate knowledge about His creation.

Having said that, the evidences I was hoping to give are not limited to science-related facts. But like I've said before....I don't have any inclination to make an effort in formulating a new way of stating them.

...Oh, then you're only preaching without substance. If you've already got your wisdom canned up, why not just open a post with a link to your wisdom rather than feign you want to be challenged?

[betsy]

...Oh, then you're only preaching without substance. If you've already got your wisdom canned up, why not just open a post with a link to your wisdom rather than feign you want to be challenged?

What are you on about? I'd already given a few of them, and you haven't even addressed them! Here.....try these:

*The Bible says, the universe has a beginning. Didn't science says the universe has a beginning? Yes or no?

*The Bible says the heavens is stretching. Didn't science says the universe is stretching - and that the correct term is indeed, "stretch?"

Yes or no.

*The Bible says the universe (and all in it) will "wear out like a garment." Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics prove that?

Aren't these true?

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

*The Bible says man is made from dust. Well, behold! 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of elements found in the earth's crust.

Guess what.....

.....if it's indeed a scientific fact that snakes used to have limbs.....then science also supports Genesis 3.

The implication in Genesis 3 is that the serpent didn't slither on its belly.

Of course you understand the full implication of that, if macroevolution is true, don't you? We can own it!

Read the rebuttal to Kimmy below.......because, that's a huge thing you've got to address too.

The Creator, undoubtedly have intimate knowledge of His creation.

Of all the "holy books" the Bible is the only book that correctly describes the order of creation as revealed through science.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Edited June 18, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

¹ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵ And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

⁶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

⁷ And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

⁸ And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

⁹ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

¹⁰ And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

¹¹ And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

¹² And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

¹³ And the evening and the morning were the third day.

¹⁴ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

¹⁵ And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

¹⁶ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

¹⁷ And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

¹⁸ And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

¹⁹ And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

²⁰ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

²¹ And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

²² And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

So in line 1 clearly we've got "the earth", in some vague description, existing before "the light".

In line 2 we've got "the waters" also clearly existing before "the light".

"The light" arrives in line 3. Since the sun and stars won't be created for 11 more lines, we can only imagine what the source of this light may be.

In lines 4 and 5 we've got day and night being created before the sun or stars.

In lines 6 and 7 God creates the sky, which holds some water "up". Still no sun or stars at this point.

Line 8, we have morning, although clearly a morning without a sunrise.

In lines 9-10 dry land arrives for the first time. It says God made dry land appear by moving the water away, so it seems the land was there already, but submerged.

In lines 11-12 God creates plants! Trees bearing fruit! Herbs bearing seed! Grass! It's gotta be 4:20 somewhere!

In lines 14-16, God gets around to creating the sun and moon! Which is lucky, because now the plants he created can photosynthesize!

Now, while I am neither a geologist nor a cosmologist, I am pretty sure that none of this bears even a faint resemblance to the actual order in which these things arrived, and I don't think even the most creative interpretation of those verses can spin it into something that jives with the information we have.

-k

I missed this one.

You're taking that literally. We don't really know if the day is a 24-hour day as we know it, or not.

If everything was done in 7 24-hour days, it's not impossible. Everything is possible with the Creator.

However, the verses in Genesis also fits what science had been saying.

Let's see:

*Line 1: Perfectly fits!

Genesis 1:1 doesn't say, "heaven." It says, "heavens." Big difference!

God created the heavens and the earth. Why did the Scripture say "heavens?"

What is "heavens?"

1. often heavens The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. (by freedictionary)

The heavens would naturally consist of the solar system, the moon, the sun, the stars, the planets. Therefore, it means all those were already in placed when the earth was created.

*Line2 fits! Wasn't early earth covered with water? Didn't the first life forms - the unicellular - appear in the water?

A new model of the early Earth suggests that until around 2.5 billion years ago oceans covered almost the whole of the planet.

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2008/12/31/early-earth-was-covered-in-water-274995/#ixzz4ByPgmcNu

Anyway, here's the rest of the interpretation - the Day-Age Genesis interpretation.

The Hebrew word, rachaph, translated as "hovering or brooding" is used only twice in the Old Testament. The second reference is to an eagle caring for its young (7). Therefore, it seems likely that the use of the word rachaph in Genesis 1:2 may be referring to God creating the first life forms in the sea.

Both science and the Bible (8) have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5).

Genesis 1:6-10 describe the initiation of a stable water cycle (9) and formation of continents (10) through tectonic activity (~2.7 x 10⁹ years ago) (11).

Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0 x 10⁹ years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) vegetation and fruit trees bearing fruit. The English word translated "vegetation" on the third day comes from the Hebrew word deshe', which refers to small plants, such as grasses and herbs. The other word, ‛eśeb, translated "plants" is even more generic, referring to any kind of green plant. So, the "day" encompasses the time from the formation of the first plants until the formation of the angiosperms. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third "day" could not possibly be just 24 hours long, as claimed by young earth creationists. Recent scientific evidence shows that plant life began on the land ~1 billion years ago

MORE......

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

That source fully addresses your arguments, Kimmy. Blow-by-blow.

Edited June 18, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Btw, the author of that Day-Age Genesis Interpretation is a scientist, Richard Deem.

He's a former atheist who became a deist, and then became a theist, and eventually converted to Christianity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcLgDk3mpQc

Edited June 18, 2016 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

What are you on about? I'd already given a few of them, and you haven't even addressed them! Here.....try these:

*The Bible says, the universe has a beginning. Didn't science says the universe has a beginning? Yes or no?

*The Bible says the heavens is stretching. Didn't science says the universe is stretching - and that the correct term is indeed, "stretch?"

Yes or no.

*The Bible says the universe (and all in it) will "wear out like a garment." Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics prove that?

Aren't these true?

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

*The Bible says man is made from dust. Well, behold! 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of elements found in the earth's crust.

Guess what.....

.....if it's indeed a scientific fact that snakes used to have limbs.....then science also supports Genesis 3.

The implication in Genesis 3 is that the serpent didn't slither on its belly.

Of course you understand the full implication of that, if macroevolution is true, don't you? We can own it!

Read the rebuttal to Kimmy below.......because, that's a huge thing you've got to address too.

The Creator, undoubtedly have intimate knowledge of His creation.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

I wasn't here from the start and so must have missed your own claims. But by the time I got here, some had already mentioned on the last page or so that you hadn't been around to respond. So I began my own discussion with another. Let me take this one bit at a time.

"*The Bible says, the universe has a beginning. Didn't science says the universe has a beginning? Yes or no?"

Physics is unspecific about the details but I believe they do support this view. I disagree with it but still don't see the concern either way. In fact, I figure the Big Bang Cosmology has very serious flaws in it on this respect. I disagree in particular with the singularity as an actual 'beginning' but only as an appearance since the logic is amiss there. Not all religions assert a beginning though. My personal take on the Judaeo-Christian roots DOES originate in sincere early 'science' and rational thinking. I believe though that the original intended literature has evolved to BECOME more specifically religious through time. This is why I was pointing some of the links to other factors of the times relating to language roots.

Example: that the original word, or words, for "God" acted as an unknown variable, just as we use "the Cosmos" or "the Universe" or, my favorite for me, "Totality". The English "God" actually assigned the virtue of "good" to this variable and where "God" as a word came from. Not all religions believed this. The "YHWH" word, meant an origin akin to birth from a cosmic egg, the Sun, and literal eggs on earth that derives all life. This likely was intending to think of an origin of Nothing and why it was "ineffible" to speak of. You can't point to an absolute nothing and so can't speak of it. Others adopted this source to require duality since how could 'good' exist without its contrast of 'evil'? Thus, it was opted by those to assert, as in Genesis, that for each action this Source did, it Commanded that it was "good".

"*The Bible says the heavens is stretching. Didn't science says the universe is stretching - and that the correct term is indeed, "stretch?"

Yes or no."

I'm not aware of this particular claim. The term for science is "expansion" and it is NOT simply a 'stretch'. But as I mentioned above, multiple interpretations were given within the same collection (the Bible is a collection of written works like an encyclopedia). Just as above, some thought the origin entity was merely an unknown variable, an absolute nothingness, an unique absolute oneness and even infinity. This if fine if it is a secular collection of different works of that day by people. But I'm guessing you likely figure only one favorable interpretation and disbelieve one or more of the others. (What is your source reference on this, btw?)

"*The Bible says the universe (and all in it) will "wear out like a garment." Doesn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics prove that?

Aren't these true?"

That's quite a vague interpretation of something most specific. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statement of a statistical probability in the ideal condition of a closed container as follows: Given a closed box, imagine it partly-filled with marbles. When sitting on the floor, all of them will settle on one side. This is like an 'ordered' condition such that ALL the marbles are on one side and none on the other (the top). BUT, atoms are always in constant motion, like if you were to shake the box. So now ask what the odds are if you should shake the box that all of the marbles would happen to mostly stick together as one block, the answer is less likely than to be scattered all over. THIS is what that law asserts. But notice that when the box is still, the marbles are 'ordered'. So this shows you that the law is specifically conditional. Movement of particles are what 'heat' energy is when randomly bumping in all different directions (chaotically). That's why this is a law of "thermo" (heat) dynamics.

If you want to use "wear out like a garment" as some wonderful universal insight about everything, could you not interpret this as even ALL endings, including some future afterlife to be unordered and without cohesion? See how it can have multiple meanings. This guess could have been written by a child.

" ...

*The Bible says man is made from dust. Well, behold! 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of elements found in the earth's crust.

Guess what.....

.....if it's indeed a scientific fact that snakes used to have limbs.....then science also supports Genesis 3.

The implication in Genesis 3 is that the serpent didn't slither on its belly."

I take a less volatile take on religion even in my intellectual nihilism and atheism. I interpret they do actually contain bits and pieces of ancient wisdom including especially science. But they are not formally expressed and have been misinterpreted inappropriately. The story of Adam and Eve was a common multi-culturally accepted secular story given the way the words had other meanings. "Adam" was a cartooned character to represent mankind, and "Eve" as that of all humans who followed. The Garden of Eden (the place in the 'East' where the sun rises each day) was a caricature of our naive youth where as children we always dream about growing up wanting to know and have the power of adulthood. Yet once we come to "know" by our maturity of becoming adults, while our wishes to be as powerful as our parents is a 'seductive' curiosity, we are cursed to realize the RESPONSIBILITY of having to struggle for survival and face death.

The 'rib' of Adam, was a euphemism for the source 'God' to give him a penis to initiate the seed that makes procreation possible. The snake too related to this but in an older youth of a female taking interest in sex and contemplating whether the act was sinful or not. Their nakedness realized was just the recognition that the 'truths' (of the Gods) they now have makes them now KNOW something they can no longer back out of and are thus cursed. Once you learn of the 'naked truth', you discover the very things that make you disappointed and wish you could forget and return to that naivete instead. It is regret and the death of the innocence.

Can you see how this has as much a secular interpretation and when put in a story that is much easier to remember than simply the facts, helps pass on this information to future generations where writing was NOT a common everyday reality. Even most written works had to be read by special privileged people to the masses without them being allowed to learn to read and freely interpret. As such, the way such stories turned into religion is not surprising.

[Scott Mayers]

By the way, "Eve" and "heaven" are words that referred to "after" in time. (G)od --> is where "odd" comes from [see also "Odin"]. These describe numbers too as Odd and Even. The sky represented the fact that as things died, they appeared to disappear into the air (Spirit) as fire, smoke, scents, vapor, wind, etcetera, go UP to. Thus it was assumed when we die, whether we are cremated or just left out to deteriorate, we 'disappear' and the sky was this secondary place we must go. Thus if Adam (think "Odd-am" for related roots) originates as '1', we then (2), die and is thus what is "Even" [(h)eaven] and leads to "Ever" (Ether --> "Earth" as another derived second following Aten [and Amun], the Sun and moon).

The waters above and below were actually a common word we would now say is "fluid". They though of only that which holds shape (atom, atum, adam) were sincere matter, such as our "solids". Then 'god' (the source,....the ONE or 'odd'), separated the fluids. Prior to this, the world was assumed all of water for the likely evidence everywhere of fish and other non-existing creatures of water in the form of fossils found in high mountainous regions. This implied those had been under water. (notice their error was fair considering they did not know of plate techtonics.) The 'giant' dinosaur fossils found was the source of the giants, like Goliath, like the Titans prior to Zeus, etc. This and the fish fossils lead them to rationally conclude that the Earth was originally under water and that some event sometime had wiped out those giant creatures and the land rose OUT of the waters (the flood myths).

Back to Genesis, when God separated the "waters" (= 'fluids'), this was the separation of Air to Water as both samples of Chaos [the word "gas" comes from this, by the way]. Since air was not able to be seen, it was most mysterious because it could still be sensed. This was what 'spirits' became and why the "Spirit of (God)" hovered above the 'waters below'. People would have rationally noticed that by keeping one from breathing this 'magical' spirit, you died. Thus this is the essence of the "spirit of gods".

Amen! [meant "amun" --> "the moon" --> the End]

Edited June 19, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

Ages of those of ancient people were dated by "moons" (months). This accidentally became interpreted much later (like many today) as 'years', and why the ancients had such apparent great ages. To determine their ages depend on how many moons but was more locally reliable than to the year that had to be adjusted for. So take an asserted age of an ancient and then divide it by 12 (approximate) to determine their actual asserted ages.

[betsy]

I wasn't here from the start and so must have missed your own claims. But by the time I got here, some had already mentioned on the last page or so that you hadn't been around to respond. So I began my own discussion with another. Let me take this one bit at a time.

I wasn't around because I got suspended for 1 week for cross-posting, and for suspected plagiarism due to similar posts with "tosca1" (from another forum). I'm also in active discussions in other forums. I am tosca1, btw.

So, you have not read the claims (and the sources backing them up)!

You're into the habit of jumping into the fray without understanding what the fray is all about?

I thought........uh-oh, that doesn't bode well.

And sure enough........

Your next statement proves you're arguing from ignorance.

I'm not aware of this particular claim. The term for science is "expansion" and it is NOT simply a 'stretch'.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post. And your other posts after that. They're all your own opinion with nothing to back them up. Not interested! Sorry.

I saw "Adam's ribs" and a "penis?" Where did that come from? You're pulling wool out of thin air....giving a rebuttal that's not even an argument in this thread? Deal with the given evidences!

I have not given my opinion (or made a claim) without any support from credible sources......so, I'm not interested in unsupported personal opinion(s) and unsupported claims. We're supposed to be in a discussion board (and in Religion/Philosophy section to boot).......not in a bar, "shooting the breeze."

Go back and read. Do your homework.

If you're going to try to rebutt my arguments, I expect you to read my arguments.

That's just the BASIC for any RATIONAL discussion!

You're lucky that in this thread, there are only a few evidences for you to read and rebutt.

That's a far cry from the 18 evidences, and counting.

Don't just butt in and start posturing around like typical new atheists/evolutionists - you easily get caught, believe me.

That hurts credibility.

Bye bye for now........ until you've actually read the evidences as given, and as explained, and as supported!

Edited June 19, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes?

- The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating,

- The rotation of the earth is slowing;

- the magnetic field of the earth is decaying.

- Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth.

- Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

- Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced.

- Many atoms decay to simpler products

.

[betsy]

http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes?

- The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating,

- The rotation of the earth is slowing;

- the magnetic field of the earth is decaying.

- Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth.

- Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

- Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced.

- Many atoms decay to simpler products

.

No. It's a deliberate false attribution from you.

You're falsely attributing your own format to that of that site's!

You've deliberately taken the time and effort to change their article's format, and you're trying to pass it off that's how they've written it!

You're being deliberately dishonest! Not only are you deliberately being dishonest in trying to make it look like I copy-pasted, but you're also giving a false representation of their "product."

How terribly desperate, and low is that?

As far as I'm concerned, you've thrown away all your credibility.

Here is how it's actually posted on that site:

This first statement was written in a previous paragraph:

The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, has been fully verified by modern science.

And the next paragraph says this:

The rotation of the earth is slowing; the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. Many atoms decay to simpler products, and it is even being postulated that sub-atomic particles, such as the proton, decay, though ever so slowly, into energy.

http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/

See how you doctored the whole thing? Shame on you.

Compare them with these statements!

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

Those are statements of scientific facts! Like these:

Earth's rotation is slowing down

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/earths-rotation-slowing-down-heres-6997075

slowing rotation of the Earth

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae695.cfm

the slowing down of Earth’s rotation

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077334/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/strange-twists-our-spinning-planet/#.V2aIbjXJbm0

It's not copy/pasted, either.

Anyway......

This has been explained already in the Question section. Duh.

Read it several times.......... and give it more, more, more time to sink in!

Post #83

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25819-a-question-on-cross-posting/page-6#entry1167692

Don't try to derail the discussion here.

Edited June 19, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

No. It's a deliberate false attribution from you. You're falsely attributing your own format to that of that site's! You've deliberately taken the time and effort to change their article's format, and you're trying to pass it off that's how they've written it!

You're being deliberately dishonest! Not only are you deliberately being dishonest in trying to make it look like I copy-pasted, but you're also giving a false representation of their "product." How terribly desperate, and low is that? As far as I'm concerned, you've thrown away all your credibility.

no - I did not alter one single word of your unattributed text; this text:

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

I presented a reference link to an article, a graphic image from that article with highlighted text, and asked you if it might be a possible attribution for that same unattributed text of yours; again: http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes?

the following 'format' guide presents a flow of text within the article/graphic; one that clearly and absolutely aligns with your unattributed text... as presented, not a single word has been changed and the order of text remains intact:

- The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating,

- The rotation of the earth is slowing;

- the magnetic field of the earth is decaying.

- Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth.

- Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

- Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced.

- Many atoms decay to simpler products

again, might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?

note: this is not a unique occurrence; many/most of your posts contain similar circumstance, where your written unattributed statements have exact or like occurrence elsewhere.

.

[betsy]

Back to the topic.

I'm waiting for Kimmy's response to my rebuttal (post #182). I hope that answers her questions.

Edited June 19, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

again, might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?

[?Impact]

I disagree in particular with the singularity as an actual 'beginning' but only as an appearance since the logic is amiss there.

The dimensions of time/space are the limits of our [observable] universe. There are all sorts of science fiction suggestions for multiple universes, many of which have an overlap with the dimensions of ours and others which our outside the dimensions of ours. Some, or all, or none of these are possibilities. The point is that from within our universe, abiding by our physics, they are beyond our capacity of observation. I don't have a problem with time having a beginning, that is just a limit of our perception. As we look out in space, we are also looking back in time. There is a limit to how far we can look out in space based on the speed of light, in the same manner there is a limit to how far we can look back in time. The cosmic background radiation is an observable confirmation of the emergence of our universe from a singularity (big bang) which yields a beginning of space/time.

[overthere]

Deluded ideas put into action can certainly be a threat. Like not vaccinating your kids for example. I can't help but feel that much of the propensity for deluded thinking in the world is due the deep respect that religion is afforded.

I just do not get how not vaccinating children somehow translates into a belief in creation. Where is the link. It is just not true that because you believe in God or a greater power that you don't vaccinate your kids, that you think the Joos perpetrated 9-11, that Obama is a radical Muslim born in Kenya and so on.

If believing in a God or Creation also meant that Christians or Muslims or Buddhists were slitting throats to get me to think that way- there would be a case.

I don't see any link, and I don't see how those beliefs affect or harm me in any significant way.

[Guest]

I just do not get how not vaccinating children somehow translates into a belief in creation.

Not so much a belief in creation, as a misguided notion that there is a supernatural being who actually cares about their kids and will fend off diseases, instead of the equally misguided, but somehow more reasonable notion that there is a supernatural being who has guided mankind towards the development of vaccines.

[?Impact]

I just do not get how not vaccinating children somehow translates into a belief in creation.

...

I don't see any link, and I don't see how those beliefs affect or harm me in any significant way.

Many vaccine opponents have been religious orders (Quakers, Baptists in Sweden, Jehovah's Witness had it as official policy from the 30's to the 50's, Christian Science, etc). The Vatican opposed the rubella vaccine because of the culture media was tissues from therapeutic abortions Some vaccines have been opposed because they promote evil ways (e.g. against sexually transmitted diseases). Muslims in some countries (e.g. Nigeria) opposed vaccines because they saw it as an American conspiracy to sterilize them. Most Jewish and Islamic councils allow for exceptions, but in Indonesia for example there is a large percentage of people who refuse vaccines because they might be derived from pigs. In some US states there is a 0.6% opt-out rate for religious reasons, although it is unclear how many are simply using that as an excuse because it is an allowable exemption. The Congregation of Universal Wisdom appears to be a religion set up to allow members to use its tenets to seek exemption (send $75 and you too can be a member).

The more significant link is the larger outbreaks of polio in religious communities like the Amish, Mennonite, Christian Science, Muslims in Nigeria, etc. Measles outbreaks have also been linked to many religious orders like the orthodox Jews, Christian Science, Evangelical Church, etc.

While the link between the scriptures and anti-vaxxers is unclear, it does appear that a large number of those opposed to vaccination are religious and their religion is the reason they oppose. On the other side there are no doubt many anti-vaxxers that are not religious, and many of the main religions of the world are proponents of vaccination.

[Scott Mayers]

I wasn't around because I got suspended for 1 week for cross-posting, and for suspected plagiarism due to similar posts with "tosca1" (from another forum). I'm also in active discussions in other forums. I am tosca1, btw.

So, you have not read the claims (and the sources backing them up)!

You're into the habit of jumping into the fray without understanding what the fray is all about?

I thought........uh-oh, that doesn't bode well.

And sure enough........

Your next statement proves you're arguing from ignorance.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post. ...

And nor will I waste any time with your ignorance. [unsubscribe]

[betsy]

And nor will I waste any time with your ignorance. [unsubscribe]

You were the one who posted a challenge to the claims in this thread, right?

And you're the one who admitted that you have not even read the arguments. What kind of a challenge do you hope to bring to my claims, if you have not read my arguments? That's just common sense, right?

So I cut to the chase, and pointed out the obvious!

Heck! You didn't even know the accurate description for the universe isn't "expanding." It's "STREEEEEEEEETCHING."

That's the exact term used in the Scriptures to describe the universe/space - 11 times by different authors from

different time-lines! In the right context!

Scott Mayers

I'm not aware of this particular claim.

Here, so you will be aware: "Expanding," was not the accurate term.

A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/623-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into-intermediate

Astronomers see galaxies moving apart from one another: space in the universe is stretching.

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Have a good day.

Edited June 24, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

That's the exact term used in the Scriptures to describe the universe/space - 11 times by different authors from

different time-lines! In the right context!

What author wrote in English?

Are you equating heavens with universe?

[betsy]

What author wrote in English?

Are you equating heavens with universe?

Exactamundo! What author wrote in English, indeed. That further supports my argument.

Think about it.

They didn't write in English.....and yet, the translation that appeared in the Bible, ended up saying the right term in describing the universe, which is only recently confirmed by modern science.

Edited June 25, 2016 by betsy