Nasa proves biblical events?????

[habib89]

hrmm.. never heard of this.. sounds interesting though..

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: NewSc2
DAPUNISHER, why don't you just edit your original message to say that you don't believe in it, it's just causing a lot of problem as I first saw it that you actually were pondering to see if this were true or not, but after reading your responses I concluded otherwise.

I would but the lazy who don't read threads and just respond for postcount++ will still react to the Pavlov effect and provide further evidence that bible is a conditioned response word in ATOT Perhaps it'll lend pause for them to introspect as to why they so often are manipulated to respond in the desired manner E.G. the Skoorb effect Besides perhaps someone will be able to further elucidate upon the Astronomical and Physical science aspects involved. For instance, they've stated that we would require a time machine to obtain the data required to make the calculations necessary, but I always read that we are looking billions of years in the past via the Hubble, Chandra X-ray? and radio telescopes in space so isn't that in essence looking back in time? Furthermore, I've read that we determined that Mars had a more normal orbit 150,000 years or so ago that could have allowed an atmosphere of sorts to exist but that it became eccentric around that time, so if we are indeed able to make these calculations (are we?) concerning Mars what prohibits us from making them about the Earth? Bear with me now, I have little knowledge in this area and am genuinely curious and find some of the members here are excellent at the "for Dummies" explainations that I relate to best Anyways that's why I haven't bothered to edit the title yet.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

this is old....one of the first things to pop up during the early days of the internet......of course....it's false ...and one time, my pastor used that article as part of the sermon ....WTF.....i just stood up noisely and left noisely in the most disgusted face..

 

[CaesarX]

I don't need an astrophysics degree to know that this is a lie. Faith is dead. Humans are logical beings, and by nature, they cannot believe in something without seeing at least a shred of evidence. The Bible was once that evidence, but more and more of them are apparently starting to realize that it's just a book. They have desparately tried to find proof of their beliefs, and when they failed, they started making it up. This is nothing new, there are thousands of stories like this one - they've existed centuries ago, and will continue to exist as long as people continue to believing everything they hear.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I don't need an astrophysics degree to know that this is a lie. Faith is dead.

they cannot believe in something without seeing at least a shred of evidence.

Interesting, because logically if you as myself, haven't studied the exact methods, calculations, observational evidence, ect needed to personally confirm or refute such an argument then you are in fact taking it on faith that there is no evidence and that the calculations can't be made as you haven't spent sufficent time studying not only the data but the methods used to obtain them in order to validate their accuracy and are therefore excepting someone else's word on it. You may argue it's common sense but as 90% of the planet believes in some sort of higher being they can't all lack common sense or it would be rather uncommon sense and you may say it's illogical but logic would dictate that one withhold judgement till they have sufficent data to make an evaluation which you have admitted you do not have due to a lack of educational backround in that particular area, so that leaves faith in those who have done so as the source of your certainty, so is faith dead? I think not.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I don't need an astrophysics degree to know that this is a lie. Faith is dead.

they cannot believe in something without seeing at least a shred of evidence.

Interesting, because logically if you as myself, haven't studied the exact methods, calculations, observational evidence, ect needed to personally confirm or refute such an argument then you are in fact taking it on faith that there is no evidence and that the calculations can't be made as you haven't spent sufficent time studying not only the data but the methods used to obtain them in order to validate their accuracy and are therefore excepting someone else's word on it. You may argue it's common sense but as 90% of the planet believes in some sort of higher being they can't all lack common sense or it would be rather uncommon sense and you may say it's illogical but logic would dictate that one withhold judgement till they have sufficent data to make an evaluation which you have admitted you do not have due to a lack of educational backround in that particular area, so that leaves faith in those who have done so as the source of your certainty, so is faith dead? I think not.

I think someone just got badly 0wned.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

I don't need an astrophysics degree to know that this is a lie. Faith is dead.

they cannot believe in something without seeing at least a shred of evidence.

Interesting, because logically if you as myself, haven't studied the exact methods, calculations, observational evidence, ect needed to personally confirm or refute such an argument then you are in fact taking it on faith that there is no evidence and that the calculations can't be made as you haven't spent sufficent time studying not only the data but the methods used to obtain them in order to validate their accuracy and are therefore excepting someone else's word on it. You may argue it's common sense but as 90% of the planet believes in some sort of higher being they can't all lack common sense or it would be rather uncommon sense and you may say it's illogical but logic would dictate that one withhold judgement till they have sufficent data to make an evaluation which you have admitted you do not have due to a lack of educational backround in that particular area, so that leaves faith in those who have done so as the source of your certainty, so is faith dead? I think not.

I think someone just got badly 0wned.

not really, his point is a fallacy, you cant gather evidence about a fictious event, if i said the real and true god is a magic hippo that flys around the universe and goes by the name of pepe, you could not refute that by any means. This is why the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive affirmation and a lack of evidence is not a valid point for that positiion.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - Learn it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

State the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both Latin and English, and make sure you use the phrase "logical fallacy." Why? Because it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition's viewpoint as "fallacious" for rhetorical effect. Stating the fallacy's Latin name helps, because some people just aren't sure something's a fallacy unless Aristotle or some other authority called it one. Say something like, "The opposition points out that the voters supported X by a wide margin in last year's referendum. But this is just the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to public opinion!"

precisely the tactic you just used and an excellent one certainly, however the concept of faith isn't debatable as it is quite real and manifest materialy, and has lamentably been responsible for many 1000's of deaths of late and as that was the point of my post, that faith is not dead as he asserted. if you wish to debate that point you'll need more than clever debating tactics to persuade anyone of the truth of his assertion

 

[sandorski]

This whole subject reminds me of an "event" that some Christians believe(I once met a guy who claimed to be there when it happened). That "event" which happened sometime in the late '70's/early '80's was when "God changed the atom". Supposedly, some scientists, including this guy who was a student at some US university, were studying the atom and in the middle of their research the structure of the atom was "changed". At first I believed it, but as my knowledge of science, and specifically the "atomic theory", expanded I began to realize that the theory gets amended from time to time in order to incorporate new understandings, not because "God" keeps re-arranging things in an effort to thwart science. It certainly was "real" to this guy though, he became a Christian because of it.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: NewSc2
DAPUNISHER, why don't you just edit your original message to say that you don't believe in it, it's just causing a lot of problem as I first saw it that you actually were pondering to see if this were true or not, but after reading your responses I concluded otherwise.

I would but the lazy who don't read threads and just respond for postcount++ will still react to the Pavlov effect and provide further evidence that bible is a conditioned response word in ATOT Perhaps it'll lend pause for them to introspect as to why they so often are manipulated to respond in the desired manner E.G. the Skoorb effect Besides perhaps someone will be able to further elucidate upon the Astronomical and Physical science aspects involved. For instance, they've stated that we would require a time machine to obtain the data required to make the calculations necessary, but I always read that we are looking billions of years in the past via the Hubble, Chandra X-ray? and radio telescopes in space so isn't that in essence looking back in time? Furthermore, I've read that we determined that Mars had a more normal orbit 150,000 years or so ago that could have allowed an atmosphere of sorts to exist but that it became eccentric around that time, so if we are indeed able to make these calculations (are we?) concerning Mars what prohibits us from making them about the Earth? Bear with me now, I have little knowledge in this area and am genuinely curious and find some of the members here are excellent at the "for Dummies" explainations that I relate to best Anyways that's why I haven't bothered to edit the title yet.

You don't need astronomy or physics to understand that this chain mail is garbage, just logic. If you have a program that is set to trace the movement of celestial objects backwards through time, that program will use the present as a reference point on which to base its calculations. There is no way the program could have a "red flag" because there are no new variables introduced into the equation while it is being run.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Besides perhaps someone will be able to further elucidate upon the Astronomical and Physical science aspects involved. For instance, they've stated that we would require a time machine to obtain the data required to make the calculations necessary, but I always read that we are looking billions of years in the past via the Hubble, Chandra X-ray? and radio telescopes in space so isn't that in essence looking back in time? Furthermore, I've read that we determined that Mars had a more normal orbit 150,000 years or so ago that could have allowed an atmosphere of sorts to exist but that it became eccentric around that time, so if we are indeed able to make these calculations (are we?) concerning Mars what prohibits us from making them about the Earth?

We can look into the past with Hubble only because the speed of light is finite and takes time to reach us from a different location. Light year = the distance light travels in one year. So when hubble looks at a star 500 light-years distant from us we see it as it was 500 years ago. In 2002 we see it as it was in 1502, in 2010 we'll see it as it was in 1510. Think of how thunder takes seconds to reach you after lightning (sound is slower than light).

To look at the Earth as it was 2,000 years ago we would need to move Hubble 2,000 light-years away from here using some means of faster-than-light travel.

Mars orbit change = extrapolating backwards from current orbits based on mathematical models, as discussed earlier.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Mars orbit change = extrapolating backwards from current orbits based on mathematical models, as discussed earlier.

Thanx Dave I did find some of that somewhat condescending though I realize my professed ignorance left me wide open for elemetary responseslike the finite speed of light. In a vacuum, light always travels at a speed of roughly 299.8 million meters per second regardless of how its speed is measured, that I'm well aware of. I'm also aware that there is a great debate raging in the community as to wether the universe is expanding or contracting and that there is evidence for both red shift and blue shift that leave the matter undecided and it only depends on which school of thought a scientist belongs to as to which they will decree to be the case. My point being that with so fundamental a physical question still beyond our ability to ascertain with great certainty how can some posters make pronouncements about orbital models and mathmatical certainties with pompous arrogance as if these things are set in stone while those who do the research and examine the new data pouring in continue to impart to us a renewed sense of awe at the vast complexity of the universe we live in and just how little we can say we know about it for certain? Oh that's right, they have high levels of smartness, my bad

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I began to realize that the theory gets amended from time to time in order to incorporate new understandings

Precisely, Thanks sandorski for stating that so succinctly

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You don't need astronomy or physics to understand that this chain mail is garbage, just logic. If you have a program that is set to trace the movement of celestial objects backwards through time, that program will use the present as a reference point on which to base its calculations. There is no way the program could have a "red flag" because there are no new variables introduced into the equation while it is being run.

While that may seem obvious to you, as Dave pointed out, some of us know very little to nothing about computer modeling and extrapolations so what is a given to you eludes others without the knowledge base to work from. I did of course surmise the story was just that and if you've read the thread part of my reason for posting was the Pavlov effect, the other was answered by providing the info you just re-iterated, thanx

 

[DaveSimmons]

I did find some of that somewhat condescending though I realize my professed ignorance left me wide open for elemetary responseslike the finite speed of light.

not intentionally, just unsure of how basic a level to start at -- after reading SF and science mags for 25 years it's hard to know what is common knowledge and what isn't The idea of viewing our past by travelling faster-than-light to a distant point was used in SF stories decades ago.

Also, the equations for planetary orbits haven't changed much since Newton in the 18th century. The parts of physics that are still fuzzy are the quantum level and (as you said) the level of the universe as a whole. But the fact that astronomers can plot where Mars should have been 150,000 years ago neither proves nor disproves that the Earth was stopped for a day.

It is arrogant of the ATOT atheist crew to just say "it's a hoax because the bible is stupid!" and it's completely wrong for them to say that orbital mechanics can disprove events from before the time when we have raw data for comparison. Of course we know this particular letter is a hoax because computer simulations also can't prove events from before when we have data.

Perhaps in a few centuries we'll have the technology to "jump" 2,000 - 2,500 light-years away and check the planetary positions before and after when the event may have ocurred. Until then it's still a matter of faith not science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

DaveSimmons has always been a reasonable and intelligent contributor to this forum. Once again I am impressed. Hats off to you Dave.

 

[LongCoolMother]

get back on topic guys! not about pi!! it was getting intense until this jumped in!

 

[BigNeko]

Thanks DAPUNISHER,

A fellow at work was talking about this the other day. I cannot believe I have gotten so lazy over time to not think it through. I should have figured out the "moving the model back in time, you wouldn`t notice the discrepency unless you were there" explaination.
God, I used to be that smart

light always travels at a speed of roughly 299.8 million meters per second regardless of how its speed is measured,

Correct me if I am wrong, but that isn`t true. I believe light travels at a different speed in water.

First link while being un-lazy
Actually, read third paragraph, covers above comment.

As to those who want you to state belief one way or the other, who cares? Its good discussion material!

Pi isn`t endless, its 22/7
Thought that had something to do with the pyramids.

Not wacthing, but listening over and over!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BigNeko
Thanks DAPUNISHER, A fellow at work was talking about this the other day. I cannot believe I have gotten so lazy over time to not think it through. I should have figured out the "moving the model back in time, you wouldn`t notice the discrepency unless you were there" explaination. God, I used to be that smart

light always travels at a speed of roughly 299.8 million meters per second regardless of how its speed is measured,

Correct me if I am wrong, but that isn`t true. I believe light travels at a different speed in water. First link while being un-lazy Actually, read third paragraph, covers above comment. As to those who want you to state belief one way or the other, who cares? Its good discussion material! Pi isn`t endless, its 22/7 Thought that had something to do with the pyramids. Not wacthing, but listening over and over!

You are correct, but the convention is to quote the speed in a vacuum. Oddly there is evidence that in certain metallic gasses, light travels faster than in free space. Has all kinds of implications. Scientists hate when you mess with these kinds of things

 

[DAPUNISHER]

No problemo BigNeko and I did clearly state in a vacuum
It's about time someone mentioned sci-fi Dave! The 3 B's Benford, Brin, and Bear are three of my favorite hard sci-fi writers, If you've read Timescape and the idea of using tacheons as a means to communicate with the future then you may have a better idea of why I was initially so preplexed as to why we can't determine the earth's position 1000's of years ago before reading your explaination, after all, Gregory Benford is a Professor of Plasma Physics and Astrophysics along with being a writer. Certainly I've been exposed to most every contemporary theory but the real application and the math involved are far beyond me Hence my initial query. Thanx again for your patience and consideration in helping me