11 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58yes
these factors are 'irrelevant' in calculating when/ if they passed each other?
irrelevant
Measure both cars speed (assume it is constant for very good reasons) see the distance apart now and calculate when and where they passed.
You can show how one must know both cars point of origin? How long they have been travelling before passing?
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightThe part you seem to keep missing is this, when we measure the
yes
irrelevant
Measure both cars speed (assume it is constant for very good reasons) see the distance apart now and calculate when and where they passed.
You can show how one must know both cars point of origin? How long they have been travelling before passing?
speed of the cars. It is a snap shot of how fast they are going, that
is all we know, how fast they are going at the time we take our snap
shot. All of those other points you blew off come into play, because if
any of them are not what you think, nothing you believe is true can
be.
Kelly
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJaylmao
The part you seem to keep missing is this, when we measure the
speed of the cars. It is a snap shot of how fast they are going, that
is all we know, how fast they are going at the time we take our snap
shot. All of those other points you blew off come into play, because if
any of them are not what you think, nothing you believe is true can
be.
Kelly
sure
OK, I'll try this one more time.
You look out your window and see two cars travelling towards each other, both cars straddling the center line, head on collision in the future unless they change direction or stop.
Do you think that given the cars' speed and separation you could calculate the point of impact, and when it would occur, without knowing when and where the cars started?
If you think yes, you could, then the other example is the same, you don't need any more information than the speed and the distance apart to KNOW when and where they passed each other. I've already said the speed was constant so you don't have to bring this up again, but let's just say that you know the drivers of both cars and you know they always use cruise control.
Still think we need to know where each car started?
11 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightLooking out at your window at cars moving toward each other, and
lmao
sure
OK, I'll try this one more time.
You look out your window and see two cars travelling towards each other, both cars straddling the center line, head on collision in the future unless they change direction or stop. ...[text shortened]... e control.
Still think we need to know where each car started?
taking a reading on the speed/rate of the cars moving away from
each other are two different things. If I'm not mistaken the
discussion we were having before the cars were moving away from
each there not toward each other.
Kelly
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's the same thing, sorry you can't see it. It's just highschool physics.
Looking out at your window at cars moving toward each other, and
taking a reading on the speed/rate of the cars moving away from
each other are two different things. If I'm not mistaken the
discussion we were having before the cars were moving away from
each there not toward each other.
How about you set up the story once and for all, cover all the ...[text shortened]... hings up so that when
we start discussing what it was you wrote, gets changed competely.
Kelly
If you observe car A moving east at 50 kph and car B moving west at 60 kph and they are 100 meters apart at the time of observation, you can calculate when they passed each other if they are heading apart OR you can calculate when they will meet if they are heading together.
You don't need to know anything else. (Remember the cruise control. People tend to keep a constant speed on a highway anyways, the cruise control is just to make it clear.)
This isn't directed at you, but any geologist would know this.
11 Jul 05
6 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightCars traveling away from each other is different than those
It's the same thing, sorry you can't see it. It's just highschool physics.
If you observe car A moving east at 50 kph and car B moving west at 60 kph and they are 100 meters apart at the time of observation, you can calculate when ...[text shortened]...
This isn't directed at you, but any geologist would know this.
moving toward each other.
If they are moving toward one another what we are looking at is when
they will crash, the event is before us. We can monitor everything
from the time we first took a reading on the cars moving toward each
other and look for changes in direction or speed, not seeing any
we can predict when they will crash.
Cars traveling away from each other presents us different
circumstances that require much more information to know what you
claim we should be able to see by just knowing the rates of the cars
current speed.
If two cars are moving 75 mph with one going east, the other going
west they are moving away form each other. If we see them when
they are 100 feet apart it would be safe to say that we could find
how long ago it was they passed one another, while on the other
hand say they were 150 miles apart, does that mean that they were
passing one another 1 hour ago? If all we know is that at the time
we took a reading on the speed is that they are currently moving
at 75 mph, can we know anything else without a doubt? All of those
things you blew off come into play. What if one car slowed, or had
to change a tire because of a flat, what if one car was only on the
road for 6 minutes not an hour? Rate only gives rate, nothing more.
Kelly
11 Jul 05
I'm new here having only joined on the 10th July 05.
So here is my personal view. How can a guy called Noah build a ship and be able to put two animals of every type onto that boat? If he did manage to do so why didn't the aligator eat the zebra, the lion attack the gazelle? Seems to me there'd be a fre-for-all!
Was Noah a biologist? Of course he was. Otherwise how was he able to take a male fly and a female fly, a male mosquito and a female mosquito, a male ant and female ant, a worker bee, a honey bee a male wasp/female wasp and the list goes on.
And in all this 40 days of rain and no food, again why didn't the animals eat each other? Did they think to themselves "Good old Noah, I won't eat the other animals until we reach land and each of us has managed to breed at least twice so the species doesn't die out?
No, of course not. The Bible and all its works is a book of fiction that has taken been changed over the years as the story has been re-told. Remember the childrens games in school where the whole class sat in a circle and someone started off a sentance like this. This is whispered into the childs ear and he would pass it on. So what starts off as "A boy in our road was married on Sunday", and by the time it has gone around the classroom and reaches the boy who started it off would suddenly burst into laughter. "That's not what I said" he/she'd say. "I never said the moon is upstairs in the bedroom"
But that is how the bible started off. A little story to pass the time. But then it grew and grew and is still being up dated to this very day.
You may realise by now that I don't beleive in god. No, I don't, although I do beleive in Good and Evil. That is a totally different subject in a much more deep and meaningful way.
Religion has been the basis of war everywhere in the world. Praise be to allah! god save the queen. Why else are we always being told 'Never talk about religion and politics when we go out to a dinner party, or somebody visits us?
Without god (no I won't give it a capital letter) most wars would of never of happened. BUT, that is my view and not yours. God job too, It would be horrid if we all liked the same as everybodyelse...wouldn't it?
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by TheSphinxvive le difference
I'm new here having only joined on the 10th July 05.
So here is my personal view. How can a guy called Noah build a ship and be able to put two animals of every type onto that boat? If he did manage to do so why didn't the aligator eat the zebra, the lion attack the gazelle? Seems to me there'd be a fre-for-all!
Was Noah a biologist? Of course ...[text shortened]... yours. God job too, It would be horrid if we all liked the same as everybodyelse...wouldn't it?
Welcome aboard Noah's Ark.
Any relationship to a zoo is coincidental.
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightIsn't this from a basic algebra course that's getting the young'un ready for vector analysis, and since it's pre-trig Math.
It's the same thing, sorry you can't see it. It's just highschool physics.
If you observe car A moving east at 50 kph and car B moving west at 60 kph and they are 100 meters apart at the time of observation, you can calculate when they passed each other if they are heading apart OR you can calculate when they will meet if they are heading together. ...[text shortened]... ol is just to make it clear.)
This isn't directed at you, but any geologist would know this.
Im picturing some poor grammar school teacher trying to explain to some kid it's not the proper setting to postulate a non-abelian universe in an attempt to prove an idea that came from the stone age.
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by TheSphinxAnything is possible with God's backing!!
I'm new here having only joined on the 10th July 05.
So here is my personal view. How can a guy called Noah build a ship and be able to put two animals of every type onto that boat? If he did manage to do so why didn't the aligator eat the zebra, the lion attack the gazelle? Seems to me there'd be a fre-for-all!
Was Noah a biologist? Of course ...[text shortened]... yours. God job too, It would be horrid if we all liked the same as everybodyelse...wouldn't it?
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompThe link I posted is not attempting to prop the young earth fallacy, or global flooding. It is showing one OSU researcher has gathered data from glacial cores that he suggests may demonstrate a rather sudden, global climate shift around 5200 years ago. Similar to the Younger Dryas that predated it by ~5000 years.
Oh ,, ok then .
However
this site Totally blows away the young earth idea.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
all that answersingenesis.god is left with is Lies.
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWell Kelly, I think you said it all, and very well. When Kneverknight even used the word 'assume' a few posts back, he made my simple point for me. Scientists take their picture in the only time they have (the present) and then assume uniformitarianism, the idea that things always were as they are now (cruise control, I guess.)
Cars traveling away from each other is different than those
moving toward each other.
If they are moving toward one another what we are looking at is when
they will crash, the event is before us. We can monitor everything
from the time we first took a reading on the cars moving toward each
other and look for changes in direction or speed, not se ...[text shortened]... r was only on the
road for 6 minutes not an hour? Rate only gives rate, nothing more.
Kelly
This kind of assumption would never fly in any physics lab I ever took when I was getting my BS in geology.
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by TheSphinxWelcome to RHP Mr. Sphinx!
I'm new here having only joined on the 10th July 05.
So here is my personal view. How can a guy called Noah build a ship and be able to put two animals of every type onto that boat? If he did manage to do so why didn't the aligator eat the zebra, the lion attack the gazelle? Seems to me there'd be a fre-for-all!
Was Noah a biologist? Of course ...[text shortened]... yours. God job too, It would be horrid if we all liked the same as everybodyelse...wouldn't it?
I have a few comments about your post, if you don't mind.
First of all, you should read the whole story. It's all contaned in about three chapters of Genesis; 3-9 I believe. Some of your objections are pre-answered there. For example, Noah was not required to go through the earth gathering animals (or bugs). In Genesis 6 it says...
Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
and again in verse 15,
Genesis 7:15
Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark
God brought the animals to Noah. Very thoughtful of Him I'd say.
As far as the eating of each other goes, food would have been stockpiled on the ark for all of the animals and the 8 people (as God had instructed:
Genesis 6
21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him
You can surely assume that the Bible is fiction, if you are so inclined, but there is no proof for that idea. Be careful. If it is not fiction, then it is very important to apply what it has to say to your life.
Yeah, I like that game we used to call telephone. It demonstrates how easily a sentence can be misheard and misstated. But it does not apply in the case of the professional scribes who were employed in the task of making exact copies of Moses' works, the Torah, or first five books of the Bible. If, in the game, we got to repeat the sentence to the speaker repeatedly, asking 'is this what you said?' and 'are you sure?' and then writing it down, checking each word with the speaker, who also had it written down and would be double checking, taking careful pains to get it right; the end of the line would not have the hysterical impact we enjoy in the game. The final quote would match the original.
And have you heard of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls'? For many centuries, doubters tried to say that the current scriptures were flawed for the same reason you cited. But then the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a cave in Palestine. These were very early manuscrips that ended up demonstrating how very little change had occurred over the centuries!
Your idea that the Bible is changing all the time and 'still being updated' is simply incorrect. Before you settle in on whether you will always not believe in God, maybe you should rethink your understanding of the Bible. There is a lot of information and good reasoning behind its being so accepted by so many people; the kind of information that must be sought after because it is not readily available and propagated in modern society. And your conclusions will matter to you most of all.
I believe in good and evil as well. And I believe the origin of evil is explained in .........the Bible.
11 Jul 05
Originally posted by David CHave any of you guys heard about this amazing ice-core related story?
The link I posted is not attempting to prop the young earth fallacy, or global flooding. It is showing one OSU researcher has gathered data from glacial cores that he suggests may demonstrate a rather sudden, global climate shift around 5200 years ago. Similar to the Younger Dryas that predated it by ~5000 years.
The planes that landed on Greenland in 1942 and were recovered recently from under 250 feet of ice? How consistent is this with the assumptions geologists have made about ice accumulation rates?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1026glacier_girl.asp
(I know Froggy says that this is a 'garbage site', but can he really think they just made up this story?)
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58
Be careful. Attacking the messenger might feel good, but doesn't really win your case. I expected this kind of credibility-challenging approach Tel, but not from you. If all you could accomplish with this is to reduce my 'authority' (if only by inuendo) then you've only avoided the merits of the argument (and revealed that that you are willing to t ...[text shortened]... ion. You'll find out that you are being asked to live by faith to a larger degree than I am!
Originally posted by chin
I'm a geologist. The evidence for a worldwide aquatic cataclysm is everywhere! But you asked for 'new' evidence and mine is somewhere's around 6000 years old.
You should expect credibility-challenging. You made no argument. Therefore I could not attack the 'merits.' Instead you made an unsubstantiated fiat claim based solely upon your authority as a geologist. When some one makes a claim of this nature, the appropriate and logical response is to ask, "What sort of authority are you?"
You're response has only illustrated the efficacy of my approach. The credentials you offer in your post reveal that you are by no means a geologist. You have a basic introductory education to the discipline that is nearly a quarter of a century expired.
None of this changes the fact that the Grand Canyon was much more likely formed from the massive draining of a newly uplifted continent than the pitiful theory that it was eroded into existence by the Colorado river.
This is a falsehood. There is a tremendous amount of geologic evidence that eliminates a rapid (less than 3 year) formation of the Grand C. Again, like I asked in my previous post, given that the consensus among the thousands of practicing geologists from accredited institutions is that the Grand Canyon formed over eons, why don't you demonstrate what is so clearly obvious? Do you think that these thousands of geologists are bent on convering up the truth?
Evidence like cross strata fossils (vertical tree trunks that pass through several sedimentary layers), massive coal deposits that bely uniformitarianistic theories of age-long deposition rates, evidence of mammoth mammoth populations in the arctic, giant fossil graveyards that indicate tremendous flooding which not only drowned the animals, but sorted, deposited and buried them in a hurry, etc. etc....is very overwhelming.
Would you mind taking one of these argument and expanding upon it? If you choose to use websites for your claims, please cite them. This way we can actually take a good look at the quality of your arguments.
Listen closely next time you watch one of these shows. Set your credibility alarm to high sensitivity so that it goes off every time you hear an untested (untestable!) assertion. You'll find out that you are being asked to live by faith to a larger degree than I am!
My 'credibility alarm' has been going off through your entire post.