If God both created the Universe and cares about humans, why did he make it so large?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I myself prefer to send a fruit basket, Steve sends two year old articles, sounds less expensive
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I myself prefer to send a fruit basket, Steve sends two year old articles, sounds less expensive
Click to expand...
I don’t know the precise shelf life of fruit baskets, except that when dried it can last a while. Steve Newton’s science information is still fresh after two years.
 
I was thinking of that whole geocentrism argument and it occured to me, according to the Theory of Relativity you can’t truly say that the geocrentrist are absolutely wrong that the earth is at the center of the universe and is stationary. According to Theory of Relativity there is NO absolute standard of rest, because there is no Galilean space-time where we have “space” which is the standard of rest in which all objects movement is made in reference to. Instead all movement is made in reference to other objects and any object in the universe can be considered to be “at rest”. If you have a spaceship traveling in one direction and another heading directly towards traveling in the opposite direction, you could say that on ship is traveling at 1000 miles an hour and the other ship is traveling at 1000 miles an hour, Or you could say that either ship is at rest athe other ship is traveling at 2000 miles an hour, and none of those answers are considered incorrect.

Now, to me, it’s clear that the MOTIONS of the planets is due to the orbit they are in around the Sun due to it’s gravitational pull. But, if someone wants to say Jupiter is in the center of the universe and everything is in motion in reference to it, according to Relativity you can’t say they are absolutely wrong.

weird, when you think about it
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I was thinking of that whole geocentrism argument and it occured to me, according to the Theory of Relativity you can’t truly say that the geocrentrist are absolutely wrong that the earth is at the center of the universe and is stationary. According to Theory of Relativity there is NO absolute standard of rest, because there is no Galilean space-time where we have “space” which is the standard of rest in which all objects movement is made in reference to. Instead all movement is made in reference to other objects and any object in the universe can be considered to be “at rest”. If you have a spaceship traveling in one direction and another heading directly towards traveling in the opposite direction, you could say that on ship is traveling at 1000 miles an hour and the other ship is traveling at 1000 miles an hour, Or you could say that either ship is at rest athe other ship is traveling at 2000 miles an hour, and none of those answers are considered incorrect.

Now, to me, it’s clear that the MOTIONS of the planets is due to the orbit they are in around the Sun due to it’s gravitational pull. But, if someone wants to say Jupiter is in the center of the universe and everything is in motion in reference to it, according to Relativity you can’t say they are absolutely wrong.

weird, when you think about it
Click to expand...
RIght on - we cannot prove it unless we can see from outside this frame of reference.

Acentrism and geocentrism are the two choices.

Now for the kicker - how much does worldview influence which one you believe?
 
buffalo said:
RIght on - we cannot prove it unless we can see from outside this frame of reference.

Acentrism and geocentrism are the two choices.

Now for the kicker - how much does worldview influence which one you believe?
Click to expand...
Let’s not get carried away. While technically, you can consider any object in the universe as “at rest” and “at the center of the universe”. Not all these “models” explain the motions of other objects in reference to the “at rest” object. For instance, according to Relativity, you sitting on a merry-go-round can be considered “at rest” and all the buildings, trees, and the earth it self can be moving in reference to you. This view isn’t considered “wrong” according to Relativity. But it doesn’t EXPLAIN any of the other motions, what is the mechanism causing the buildings, trees, and earth to move in reference to you sitting on that merry-go-round? While if you consider the ground to be “at rest” and your motion to be caused by the spinning of the merry-go-round on it’s center axis, this EXPLAINS all the motions we’re observing. It’s the same thing with the Sun’s gravity explaining the motions of all the other planets in orbit around it, this “model” explains all the motions we see, while the “earth at the center” model does not.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Let’s not get carried away. While technically, you can consider any object in the universe as “at rest” and “at the center of the universe”. Not all these “models” explain the motions of other objects in reference to the “at rest” object. For instance, according to Relativity, you sitting on a merry-go-round can be considered “at rest” and all the buildings, trees, and the earth it self can be moving in reference to you. This view isn’t considered “wrong” according to Relativity. But it doesn’t EXPLAIN any of the other motions, what is the mechanism causing the buildings, trees, and earth to move in reference to you sitting on that merry-go-round? While if you consider the ground to be “at rest” and your motion to be caused by the spinning of the merry-go-round on it’s center axis, this EXPLAINS all the motions we’re observing. It’s the same thing with the Sun’s gravity explaining the motions of all the other planets in orbit around it, this “model” explains all the motions we see, while the “earth at the center” model does not.
Click to expand...
Check out Airy’s Failure.

** The “Rotating” Earth… - Theory, Fact or Fiction?**

The result however contradicted the expectation: there were no variations at different times of the year. Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy (1801-1892) decided to try out Boscovich’s idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory a about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly “moving” earth. Airy didn’t observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a “failure”. So that’s why it is now commonly called Airy’s Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along! In 1887, was one of the most important experiments in the history of physics and was performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. This interferometer experiment is usually referred to as the Michelson–Morley experiment.
 
God made the universe so big in order to make it more difficult for aliens to come to earth and eat us.

The book of Revelation talks about the “Living creatures” and the 24 elders of the alien race (Rush 2112 anyone?) having some kind of supper.

It’s the only logical explanation!

-Tim-
 
Buffalo, you really ought to learn to discern between reliable websites and those that are pure junk. The one that you link as though it were some sort of authority is pure junk. Do you really think, like the author of that website, that the fact the pole star remains on the earth’s rotational axis is evidence for geocentrism? Do you really think something as dumb as that? Because if you don’t, and I give you credit for realising what nonsense that is, then you must also realise that the rest of the website is junk. I mean this guy thinks that tails of comets are caused by material trailing out behind the core because of the velocity of the comet - you can’t take anything that anyone with that level of ignorance says seriously, can you?
buffalo said:
Check out Airy’s Failure.

** The “Rotating” Earth… - Theory, Fact or Fiction?**
Click to expand...
First of all, it is only geocentrists who call this experiment Airy’s failure. I am not aware of a single respectable physicist or historian of science who does so.

Secondly, to the extent that Airy’s experiment had a null result (ie the measured stellar aberration is the same whether the light is propagating through water or air) it was evidence against partial aether drag (which predicted a difference between the air and water case), not against an earth orbiting the sun.

Thirdly, if you, and the author of that website really understood stellar aberration, you wouldn’t bring it up so glibly in support of geocentrism, because as observed by Bradley, Arago, Airy and every astronomer since it is fantastically good evidence *for *the orbit of the earth. Stellar aberration can be explained *only *by motion of the earth in a direction perpendicular to the propagation direction of light. Aberration is not caused by any motion of the sources (the stars) which has absolutely no influence on the aberration that we observe.

So, if you really want to argue the geocentric position you’d be well advised to learn a little about what stellar aberration really is and what it shows, because every time you bring it up, you are pointing to a superb piece of evidence *for *the earth’s motion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
TimothyH said:
God made the universe so big in order to make it more difficult for aliens to come to earth and eat us.

The book of Revelation talks about the “Living creatures” and the 24 elders of the alien race (Rush 2112 anyone?) having some kind of supper.

It’s the only logical explanation!
Click to expand...
This is what the founders of all the Protestant sects thought about other passages in the Bible… 🙂
 
hecd2 said:
Buffalo, you really ought to learn to discern between reliable websites and those that are pure junk. The one that you link as though it were some sort of authority is pure junk. Do you really think, like the author of that website, that the fact the pole star remains on the earth’s rotational axis is evidence for geocentrism? Do you really think something as dumb as that? Because if you don’t, and I give you credit for realising what nonsense that is, then you must also realise that the rest of the website is junk. I mean this guy thinks that tails of comets are caused by material trailing out behind the core because of the velocity of the comet - you can’t take anything that anyone with that level of ignorance says seriously, can you?

First of all, it is only geocentrists who call this experiment Airy’s failure. I am not aware of a single respectable physicist or historian of science who does so.

Secondly, to the extent that Airy’s experiment had a null result (ie the measured stellar aberration is the same whether the light is propagating through water or air) it was evidence against partial aether drag (which predicted a difference between the air and water case), not against an earth orbiting the sun.

Thirdly, if you, and the author of that website really understood stellar aberration, you wouldn’t bring it up so glibly in support of geocentrism, because as observed by Bradley, Arago, Airy and every astronomer since it is fantastically good evidence *for *the orbit of the earth. Stellar aberration can be explained *only *by motion of the earth in a direction perpendicular to the propagation direction of light. Aberration is not caused by any motion of the sources (the stars) which has absolutely no influence on the aberration that we observe.

So, if you really want to argue the geocentric position you’d be well advised to learn a little about what stellar aberration really is and what it shows, because every time you bring it up, you are pointing to a superb piece of evidence *for *the earth’s motion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
I only linked it for Airy.
 
hecd2 said:
What does that mean? It’s obvious that you linked it approvingly becasue you mistakenly thought it was evidence for a stationary earth. You were wrong and it isn’t.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
I am introducing the poster to Airy’s failure and would like him to look for himself what it means.
 
buffalo said:
AIRY’S FAILURE RECONSIDERED
Click to expand...
Demonstrates that van der Kamp doesn’t understand stellar aberration any more than you do. His explanation for what is observed is that *all *10^23 stars in the observable universe lie on a spherical shell just 58 light days away (well all 10^23 apart from the sun that is, which for some bizarre reason lies at the centre of the shell and is locked solidly to it but only 8 light minutes away from us). That’s about 24 times closer than the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, whose distance is easily measured accurately by parallax. Now you can believe van der Kamp’s silliness if you want, but don’t pretend to non-scientists here that this is anything other than arrant nonsense.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Picking up where I left off on page 12.🙂 People should review what I presented there.🙂

I’ve now located another great website, Dive and Discover of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which is good for teachers and divers too! :DIt states:
3.5 billion years ago
The first life appeared. Colonies of photosynthetic bacteria formed hard calcium carbonate mounds called stromatolites.
divediscover.whoi.edu/history-earth/index.html#years15
Click to expand...
Another recent article:
Astrobiology
2010 May;10(4):381-95.
Stromatolites in the approximately 3400 Ma Strelley Pool Formation, Western Australia: examining biogenicity from the macro- to the nano-scale.
Wacey D.
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis, and the School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Click to expand...
Abstract
The 3426-3350 Ma Strelley Pool Formation (SPF) is a silicified, dominantly sedimentary unit within the Pilbara Supergroup, Western Australia. It is found widely across the East Pilbara Terrane, and it forms a prominent marker horizon and separates the largely volcanic 3520-3427 Ma Warrawoona and 3350-3315 Ma Kelly groups. It has become one of the key formations for study by astrobiologists, following reports of some of the world’s oldest stromatolites. Abundant contextural and morphological evidence has been presented over the last decade in support of a biological role in SPF stromatolite formation. This evidence is reviewed here, and additional data are presented from recent fieldwork carried out across the approximately 25 km of SPF outcrops in the East Strelley greenstone belt of the East Pilbara Terrane. In addition to contextural and morphological evidence, a compelling claim for early life requires geochemical evidence for biological cycling. A potential avenue of approach to obtain such evidence for the SPF stromatolites (and other ancient examples) is discussed in the context of a pilot study in which nano-scale secondary ion mass spectrometry (NanoSIMS) was used.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=20528193&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Click to expand...
 
hecd2 said:
Demonstrates that van der Kamp doesn’t understand stellar aberration any more than you do. His explanation for what is observed is that *all *10^23 stars in the observable universe lie on a spherical shell just 58 light days away (well all 10^23 apart from the sun that is, which for some bizarre reason lies at the centre of the shell and is locked solidly to it but only 8 light minutes away from us). That’s about 24 times closer than the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, whose distance is easily measured accurately by parallax. Now you can believe van der Kamp’s silliness if you want, but don’t pretend to non-scientists here that this is anything other than arrant nonsense.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
What we are witnessing here is the god of science trying to intimidate any who dare challenge their order for the universe. The sheer arrogance above is an attempt to prevent anybody from even thinking about it. Unfortunately Buffalo this is what you get discussing ‘science’ with a Copernican. So convinced are they in their belief system they really cannot see the woods for the trees, or is it the other way round.
Walter van der Kamp understood the Airy Failure too well, and that is what bugs the Copernicans. The very idea that we live in a metaphysical universe (spatial relativity) created by God whose order cannot be determined by man is a fact they cannot live with. The irony of it all is that they all applauded Einstein, the man who re-introduced the phenomenon of relative movement, because it was he who rescued the heliolaters from another FAILURE ( The M&M experiment) in physics that actually favoured the Geocentric position just as the Airy Failure did. But now they think they can dispose with relativity and reintroduce their Heliocentrism as a proven fact.

Hecd, just so that all non-scientists reading this forum are not deceived let me spell it out clearly. The order of the universe has been reserved to God and His angels. He tells us this in his questions to Job (and the Hecds of this world). By creating space into which He placed the earth and then all the other bodies subservient to it, He made it IMPOSSIBLE for man to find this order through human reasoning. Only if He, or the angels with His permission, tell us what that order is, we humans WILL NEVER KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

Such a statement makes the Hecds of this world seeth with rage. Don’t we all know these days man is god. Man determines what the order of the universe is, not God. So, having fooled the Church and State into believing Newton and Bradley really did prove the sun is fixed and the earth moves, they were not going to let the FAILURES of physics to prove a moving earth get in their way. So what they did was INVENT AD HOCS to reverse the FAILURES for Heliocentrism into FAILURES for geocentrism. Here above Hecd uses these *ad hocs * like they were laws of the universe, when all they are are ad hocs. Note well he uses parallax as a fact: he says ‘Proxima Centauri, whose distance is easily measured accurately by parallax.’ Now Hecd does not know parallax is only a heliocentric way of measuring distances. But as Heliocentrism is only a theory, so is parallax as a way of measuring distances.

However Hecd thinks that if he writes like he knows it all, and can declare any contradictions to his way of thinking is ‘arrant nonsense’, then the non-informed readers of CAF will think he really knows his stuff. Well you do not convince Buffalo and I hecd.
 
Hi and god bless all of you! S69

This is interesting and fascinating topic and the answers are even more fascinating.

I am amazed at the number of Catholics here deny the literal 6 days of creation; at what point do you begin to believe Scripture? Just wondering and assume the church has not put the Vatican stamp on the issue thus leaving it’s faithful to believe either evolution over millions of years or six days. I wonder how Adam evolved and how Eve became woman from the rib of Adam and breath of God. If one questions the Genesis account, then the entire bible is questionable.

This planet of ours is a disposable planet just as the universe is disposable and will be disposed of and maybe in the not to distant future. Sciene already knows this, they just don’t know when.

Why would God create anything? What does the Bible say? DISPAYS HIS GLORY to the creation. Also, because HE choose to.

What does Romans tells us? The creation makes known to the creature His invisable attributes.

What an amazing creation and this one is stained; can’t wait to see and be within the unstained Heavens and Earth and I hope all of you are with me in Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top