Bad news: The asteroid that just missed Earth is coming back. And...

[Jntg4]

Are there bad biblical translations? Yes. Are most great translations? Yes. I believe lexicons would argue the complexity of the Hebrew language over our own. Just take agape. We don't have a word for it and need to use multiple words to explain it.


Show me where I said you just need to measure the speed. Anywhere, ever.

Your reading comprehension is that of an unborn infant whale, I did not claim that you said that at all, I was arguing that that is an observation of real physics.

And BTW, speed is velocity without direction, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity... Completely different

 

[brett05]

No, it doesn't make sense.

To what end would a god purposefully place stars many, many light years away, then instantly transport the visible radiation/photons so that we can see them? Why create a universe filled with observable evidence to contradict commonly accepted biblical writing?

Explain to me how it contridicts? I did not catch that in your post.

 

[brett05]

Your reading comprehension is that of an unborn infant whale, I did not claim that you said that at all, I was arguing that that is an observation of real physics.

And BTW, speed is velocity without direction, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity... Completely different

And with this post you've lost the discussion. Have fun.

 

[Jntg4]

And with this post you've lost the discussion. Have fun.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Wouldn't it have been prior to the sun? or prior to the Bang?

We were talking about the earth, so those circumstances don't apply. In terms of the universe being closed in these circumstances, that's more of a disputed subject.

 

[northsiderbearcub]

I like how they don't talk about the actual odds of this happening..they just say "Oh, well in 67 years, this thing is going to hit us!" So, that's like, what, a 100% then of this happening?

Even if this were to occur, it could likely end up in either a desolate area or in the middle of the ocean, you know, considering that takes up more than 2/3 of the Earth's surface area. Not to mention in 67 years we'll probably be better prepared for this type of scenario anyway.

Thing i would be a little more scared of is gamma rays, which could burn us into a crisp and are tough to detect, but that comes usually with nearby supernovas.

If it hits the ocean that force is enough to cause tidal waves the size of skyscrapers. Many lives will be lost as a result.

 

[northsiderbearcub]

I love the "science" part of the orginal planet formation. Even those that believe in evolution know that's false. What makes anyone think it will not lose material as it dues now?

The educational system is fucked. People like you walking around not knowing shit about planetary formation yet questioning it because you lack knowledge.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

If it hits the ocean that force is enough to cause tidal waves the size of skyscrapers. Many lives will be lost as a result.

"That explosive encounter, NASA says, will release about 2.5 megatons of energy into the atmosphere, causing "regional devastation."

Considering how presumptuous this is to start, the estimates on the potential megatons here may vary. If we are going by this, then 2.5 megatons of energy is quite a bit.

This would probably cause a decent sized tsunami, but I was reading that the 2004 tsunami was 26 megatons, so I'm not so sure we'd have tsunamis the size of skyscrapers. Depending on where the asteroid would hit, hypothetically, it could cause a tsunami that may affect some coastal areas. But it probably wouldn't be that bad.

Though i'm not the most well read on this.

 

[nickofypres]

But... Detroit is by us...

Detroit is only 45 minutes from here. :lol:

Hope it lands in the ocean.

 

[Stapler]

I present to you a burning candle. I ask you how tall was it when I lit the candle.

That's easy. All I need to do is measure at what speed it's burning now and what it's leaving behind as it burns. From these two simple measurements I can deduce how long the candle was when you lit it, and at what time it started, assuming the room around the candle remained unchanged between then and now.

Now if the room is expanding faster than the speed of light, as our universal room is, then it's going to be harder to measure the candle as it exists now, let alone whatever happened before you lit it.

Edit; I really don't understand why more religious people don't embrace astrophysics. The more we learn about it the more it looks "miraculous" and spectacular beyond simple chance. And it doesn't mess with any preconceived timelines of creation either because time is always relative, and there are no straight lines in nature.

 

[brett05]

That's easy. All I need to do is measure at what speed it's burning now and what it's leaving behind as it burns. From these two simple measurements I can deduce how long the candle was when you lit it, and at what time it started, assuming the room around the candle remained unchanged between then.

Now let's look at why this is invalid
1) you don't know that the candle was burning at a constant rate always
2) you don't know if all the melt by the candle is all of it
3) you don't know where the candle got lit

4) you don't know if anything was done to contaminate the process positively or negatively.

 

[Stapler]

Now let's look at why this is invalid
1) you don't know that the candle was burning at a constant rate always
2) you don't know if all the melt by the candle is all of it
3) you don't know where the candle got lit

4) you don't know if anything was done to contaminate the process positively or negatively.

Welcome to physics 101. Einstein thought (hoped) the room was static, and forced that math into his equations. (he called it his greatest blunder)

But if we CAN assume the room remained unchanged since you first lit it up then I can easily tell you how long your candle was, and how long it's been burning. It's pretty simple math really.

(please see all current estimates of the Bang date and speed limits, plus or minus the expansion acceleration rate; depending on which "end" you are measuring from [hint; they don't add up right])

 

[Stapler]

Brett05,

Try to think of the residual effect of what we "hear" via radio waves, and "see" via slight temp diff, to be proof of the big bang and establish the speed limits of "sound and light" of a universe whose elements will never catch up with it's 'end, yet is all still somehow connected, as it expands out forever trying to catch up with whatever initially set it off in the first place. (take candle length completely out of the equation; how old is the candle and what did you light it with?)

Whatever created all this is long gone and speeding away; or, it's so close we can almost hear and see it, depending on how one chooses to look at things. The Big Bang concepts, and billions of years of an arbitrary perception of time, do nothing to disprove anything in the Bible. It's only a question of "dating" things in a relative way.

 

[brett05]

Stapler,
I believe you've missed the problem with dating. You gave so many assumptions that you've left science and entered faith. Which really is fine, but it needs to be called what it is

 

[Stapler]

Stapler,
I believe you've missed the problem with dating. You gave so many assumptions that you've left science and entered faith. Which really is fine, but it needs to be called what it is

What have I assumed? You're the one that lit a candle in a room someplace, I'm only doing the math for you after the fact?

 

[brett05]

See my original 4 questions on the issues with the candle.

 

[bearmick]

say the folks with an old universe viewpoint

LOL are you a young Earth creationist? Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Earth is only a few thousands years old?

 

[brett05]

LOL are you a young Earth creationist? Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and that the Earth is only a few thousands years old?

I am a yec and the bible is the inerrant word of God. That is vastly different than your statement however.

 

[bearmick]

I am a yec and the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Despite the zero evidence for this being true, and overwhelming evidence of it being nonsense, you still choose to believe it anyway.

Why?

 

[brett05]

Despite the zero evidence for this being true, and overwhelming evidence of it being nonsense, you still choose to believe it anyway.

Why?

Because of the overwhelming evidence that it's true. Read the thread tobfind 100+ others that agree with me. Hint: I put it in a spoiler tag