Part 9 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Nope! I am admitting to having caught you in another claim that you cannot show "PROOF". The claim of 8.5 billion planets in the universe. I also have you pegged of not being able to even count to 8.5 billion in increments of 1... So to arrive at your conclusion of 8.5 billion when you cannot count that high in increments of 1, then it is only obvious that you were using some strange form of numerology...(number magic)

 

How are the numbers (8.5 billion) relevant to religion or philosophy when they were used in context to the findings of the science community by another poster?

 

First, I think you mean 8.8 billion. Secondly, rstones explained how the number was relevant when he brought it up. Thirdly, what does counting to the number 8.8 billion by increments of 1 have to do with what rstones said and/or the subforum?

 

My meaning is that he did not count the planets, therefore, all he is doing is accepting those numbers on blind faith. The numbers do not impress me one bit, because I know that he (nor you for that matter) can count to 8.5 or 8.8 billion in increments of 1. Subsequently I know that the planets were not counted.... the numbers were manipulated. BTW: his explanation also failed in its' mission of convincing me... the explanation was not sufficient to compel my mind to accept it as 'true'.

 

We have to remember that while animals are not capable of speaking, there are powerful beings out there (God, the angels, satan, the demons) who are capable of the impossible, including enabling animals to speak.

Most scholars hold that it was satan in the Garden of Eden who was speaking through the snake, not the snake itself speaking on its own. Thus, the Genesis 3 account it is not suggesting that snakes were of an intellect that would have enabled them to speak coherently.

 

Incorrect. If I choose to do so, I could also become a scientist and count the planets myself. The difference between you and me, is that I could verify the evidence that is present to me. With religion, NOTHING is verifiable.

 

If anything 8.5 to 8.8 Billion Planets is a VERY LOW NUMBER.

Since there exists over 100 billion galaxies in the universe....this means there are 10 to the 22nd to 24th Stars in the Universe. This is a 10 followed by either 22 to 24 ZERO's or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars.

The number of Planets in the Universe would be along the lines of 10 to the 38th to 40th...or perhaps as high as 10 to the 56th.

The number of Life Bearing Planets in the Universe is best defined by the Drake Equation but none the less it is a MASSIVE NUMBER.

AboveAlpha

 

My "empirical data" has already been verified by one of your non-theist colleagues. It was verified when that other non-theist gave them the title of 'empirical data'. So, are you now calling that other non-theist a liar or ignorant ... are you saying that the other non-theist does not know what she is talking about?

Seemingly you don't know what 'empirical data' is. Do you know anything about the scientific method?

 

Uh oh... now we have a dispute among the non-theists.

Oh my goodness.. another number manipulator. Who did the count on the 100 billion galaxies? Who did the count of "10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stars"? Have those numbers been validated by an accountant? Where are the records for the starting and ending periods of the counting process? Was there a monitor overseeing the count to make sure that they were all counted and that none were counted more than once?

Well, I can see now that you are moving away from the accuracy of an actual count and are now leaning toward guess work. Your use of the word "perhaps" is a dead give away that you are not counting but just guessing and using number manipulation.

More evidence of the number manipulation. "Equation". Yeppir.. numerology all day long.

Below Beta. I guess that would be somewhere in between.

 

Do you have links to said verification, because the posts you make are known to be exaggerated nonsense. Or better put, I don't believe a word you said about said verification.

 

You know....you really should try to look up the realities and probabilities and stop wasting time with the ideologies.

These numbers are relatively accurate as we can visually see to edge of the Universe and with the help of Supercomputers and the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra Scope....we KNOW approx. how many Galaxies, Stars and a bit less accurate....number of Planets exist in the Universe.

You...on the other hand have no data....no science...and no logic to prove anything.

AboveAlpha

 

There is plenty of water to cover the earth if only the Earth was more nearly spherical before the Flood, meaning that it virtually had no mountains, no valleys, no ocean trenches.

Do you know for a fact that the Earth wasn't nearly spherical before the Flood? That's ok, no need to answer the question, cause I already know the answer...it is no!

We can only present theories, speculate and those are not good enough...sorry!

But of course we can still have a scenario where the mountains before the Flood were smaller than today and the trenches not as deep to have a Flood to cover the whole world.

Genesis tells us that all the underground waters erupted from the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky and this rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights.

Another thing to keep in mind is that God is omnipotent. If He said He flooded the entire earth, well then He flooded the entire earth!

 

Here is the problem with your hypothesis that the Earth was smooth when the supposed Flood occurred.

The flood supposedly occurred less than 6000 years ago.....correct?

The AGE of Mt. Ararat is in the MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF YEARS....as is all mountain ranges in the world.

AboveAlpha

 

nu-uh...Where you around for a millions years? If not then how can you say those mountain ranges are that old?

 

The reality is the here and now... the probabilities are guesswork based on number manipulation.

Computers can be programmed to provide a given response or even a manipulated response where either more is added or less is added. Bab analogy. But good example terms that show my point. "probabilities", "relatively", "approximately", "bit less accurate".

I on the other hand am not on a mission to 'prove' anything. If you are suggesting that science, or logic, or even manipulated data, can "prove" anything, then you might find yourself in hot water with some of the non-theists on this forum who say that 'science doesn't deal in proofs'.. then the logic thing.. that is nothing more than another form of philosophy that is pitted against other philosophies. Opinions vs Opinions.

 

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood[2] and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[3] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.
Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.

LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

AboveAlpha....p.s....Neutron Decay does not lie!

 

Already gave it to you earlier today. It is not my fault that you either did not read it, or were too lazy to look it up then. Point being ... if you want it now, look it up yourself.

As for what you believe. I really care less about what you believe. I already know that you don't believe as I believe so there is an immediate opposition existing between the two of us. So now what? We can continue with this tit for tat or you can do as you said your were going to do earlier... saying "have a nice night" was what I thought to be a cordial way of saying 'good night'.... but I guess, knowing you, you just can't stay away... you can't let it go... you have to be off in the middle... you have to be constantly throwing ridicule... To be honest, I don't think I have ever seen you say anything to a theist member of this forum that did not consist of some form of ridicule or innuendo affecting their personality, social standing, financial status, educational level, ... I can't lay that out as an absolute claim, as I know I have not read all of your postings, but that is my gut feeling.

 

LOL!!!

We know approx. how many Galaxies, Stars and Planets exist in the Universe because WE CAN VISUALLY SEE THE GALAXIES....determine Galactic Mass by Red and Blue Doppler Shifts and Gravitic Effect thus calculate a VERY CLOSE number of Stars in a Galaxy and then by determining the WOBBLE of Stars we have already discovered over 300 Planets around nearby Stars and since the ones we are able to catch crossing in front of their stars in line with our Computer Enhanced Detection we know that even though we can detect several Large High Mass Gas Giants around these stars the Stars Wobble is specific to more planets then just those 2 Gas Giants.

This stuff is pretty basic now days and you are WAY BEHIND THE CURVE.

AboveAlpha

 

Yeppir... this stuff (that stuff you just threw on the table) is pretty basic rationalization. (the making of excuses).
It is also a showing of a contradiction... 'we know' and 'approx'. "approx" meaning 'approximately' is nothing more than guess work... so if it is guesswork, then how can you KNOW?

 

More lies....the said poster already refuted this.

Yes we could continue on this tit for tat. Or you could lay down your admitted ignorance and actually LEARN something while you are here. But we both know that wont happen.....

 

Wrong. The said posters last comment on that thread was in agreement with me. Quit the fabrications.

Well, why don't you lay down your ignorance regarding the Bible and learn something. But we both know that wont happen. In fact, I believe that most non-theists on this forum need to learn the difference between the science section of the forum and the religion section of the forum. .... but that is just my opinion.

 

The only manipulation is by you, trying to cast doubt on sound scientific evidence.

 

SORRY 199....I did not realize you were being FACETIOUS! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Then post the response.....I'll be waiting


I've read the bible, its a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Most atheists are atheists because we did read the bible, and have some to the only logic conclusion that the 'god' the bible speaks is cannot logically exist.

Then again, this requires logic, something you seem to be lacking.....

 

Do you also see a problem with the other hypothesis that I mentioned? In that the mountains before the Flood were smaller than today and the trenches not as deep?

I have no idea when it occurred, God didn't tell us the exact date. Do you know the exact date that the Flood occurred? Do you think it occurred less than 6000 years ago?

Why can't you give me the exact age? What's the problem? Saying multiple millions of years does nothing. Is there a +/- to this age? This age is a guesstimate isn't it?...lol

How do you know the instruments used to determine the age of the mountains are highly accurate?