When did Adam/Eve Live?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhilVaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When did Adam/Eve Live?
A long time ago, in a land far far away. šŸ˜‰
 
40.png
buffalo:
You could make some money if you could prove the earth revolves around the sun. Sungenis has offered an online reward and many have tried but to my knowledge no scientist has collected.
Click to expand...
On the contrary no-one will ever collect because Sungenis is the judge and he has decided a priori that the earth does not orbit the sun. Itā€™s a simple fraud not worthy of a momentā€™s consideration.

Any half decent scientist will tell you that the earth and the sun rotate around each other as any pair of orbiting bodies do. Strictly speaking they orbit the centre of mass of the sun-earth system where their orbits are a conic section with a focus at the centre of mass.(The equations of motion of rotating bodies and the mathematics of conic sections are gorgeous - they send shivers down your spine. If Sungenis had the slightest feel for the aesthetics of science and maths, heā€™s be using this beauty to support the existence of the Creator instead of driving away serious people with his futile, cranky, moribund ideas). Since the mass of the sun is 328,900.56 times the mass of the earth plus the moon, the centre of mass is 328,900.56 times closer to the centre of the sun than the centre of the earth. That puts the centre of mass 281 miles from the centre of the sun deep inside it. The sun orbits this centre of mass - the diameter of the sunā€™s orbit is 562 miles and the diameter of the earth-moon system orbit is 186,000,000 miles.

By the way there are many reasons for agreeing to the fact that, with reference to the universal frame, the earth rotates around the sun, but may I suggest stellar parallax. The fact is that, at least with regard to geocentrism, Sungenis is a crank who does the Church far more harm than good.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
You could make some money if you could prove the earth revolves around the sun.
Click to expand...
Itā€™s unprovable. As a spacecraft engineer, we pick our reference origin based upon convention, not based upon any objectively provable truth.

I can model the solar system using Keplerā€™s laws (in fact we often do), with the earth as our reference origin. I can also model the solar system with the sun as our reference origin. It depends upon the problem we are attempting to solve and the utility of the model as to which one we use.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Itā€™s unprovable. As a spacecraft engineer, we pick our reference origin based upon convention, not based upon any objectively provable truth.

I can model the solar system using Keplerā€™s laws (in fact we often do), with the earth as our reference origin. I can also model the solar system with the sun as our reference origin. It depends upon the problem we are attempting to solve and the utility of the model as to which one we use.
Click to expand...
Of course you use Keplerā€™s three laws which is the correct approximation for orbital mechanics in Newtonian dynamics. Gives the wrong answer for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but generally speaking, who cares?

Youā€™ve posted this claim a number of times. You do understand, of course, the difference between a local rotating frame of reference (such as the earth) and the inertial frame of reference of the galaxies (inertial frame = one that moves at constant or no speed without accelerations). Those who lack scientific sophistication think that Einsteinā€™s special theory of Relativity claims that all frames of refrence are equivalent. Thatā€™s not so.

The fixed stars turn out to be a true inertial frame of reference where all body interactions cancel out in action/reaction pairs leaving no unexplained accelerations. In the terrestrial frame of reference there are residual coriolis and centrifugal forces - the terrestrial and the inertial frames of reference are not equivalent, however useful local frames are in computing the orbits of terrestrial satellites. Bet you donā€™t use the earth frame of reference for computing the path of the Cassini (Saturn) probe (or indeed any probe that is projected beyond terrestrial orbit).

Now then, are you really claiming that the local frame of reference of the earth is equivalent and indistinguishable from the inertial frame of reference of the universe against which all proper motion is measured?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
hecd2:
On the contrary no-one will ever collect because Sungenis is the judge and he has decided a priori that the earth does not orbit the sun. Itā€™s a simple fraud not worthy of a momentā€™s consideration.

Any half decent scientist will tell you that the earth and the sun rotate around each other as any pair of orbiting bodies do. Strictly speaking they orbit the centre of mass of the sun-earth system where their orbits are a conic section with a focus at the centre of mass.(The equations of motion of rotating bodies and the mathematics of conic sections are gorgeous - they send shivers down your spine. If Sungenis had the slightest feel for the aesthetics of science and maths, heā€™s be using this beauty to support the existence of the Creator instead of driving away serious people with his futile, cranky, moribund ideas). Since the mass of the sun is 328,900.56 times the mass of the earth plus the moon, the centre of mass is 328,900.56 times closer to the centre of the sun than the centre of the earth. That puts the centre of mass 281 miles from the centre of the sun deep inside it. The sun orbits this centre of mass - the diameter of the sunā€™s orbit is 562 miles and the diameter of the earth-moon system orbit is 186,000,000 miles.

By the way there are many reasons for agreeing to the fact that, with reference to the universal frame, the earth rotates around the sun, but may I suggest stellar parallax. The fact is that, at least with regard to geocentrism, Sungenis is a crank who does the Church far more harm than good.

Alec
%between%
Click to expand...
Advannce your argument to him and let him refute it. I would be interested to see his answer.
 
Now then, are you really claiming that the local frame of reference of the earth is equivalent and indistinguishable from the inertial frame of reference of the universe against which all proper motion is measured?
Click to expand...
No. Iā€™m claiming that you can translate any frame of reference to an earth-centered reference if you want. It may not be as useful, depending upon your application, but you can do it.

The Bible used an earth-centered frame of reference. Was it objectively incorrect to do so? Was it untrue to consider the sun to have moved around the earth? To assert such is much like asserting the Japanese are incorrect to drive on the left side of the road. It all depends upon the reference point, convention, and utility as to what frame of reference we select. The sun does indeed move around the earth if you pick an earth-centered frame of reference and mathematically model all your celestial movements from that convention. In fact, when communicating with a satellite, we have to worry about the Sun-Vehicle-Earth angle. So, we model the sunā€™s movement around the earth, mathematically, and produce an ephemeris table to allow us to avoid radio frequency interference problems associated with pointing our communication dish toward the ā€œmovingā€ sun.
 
Bet you donā€™t use the earth frame of reference for computing the path of the Cassini (Saturn) probe (or indeed any probe that is projected beyond terrestrial orbit).
Click to expand...
Yes we can, and do, as we sometimes like to communicate with these probes. Our ephemeris uses earth as our frame of reference (since that is where we are communicating from). I didnā€™t work on the Cassini, but I my engineering team did do the orbital analysis of the Advanced Composition Explorer, which orbited a Lagrangian point in space between the earth and sun.
 
HI,

Genesis 4:15
And the Lord said to him, " Therefore whoever kills Cain,vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold" And the Lord set a mark on Cain lest anyone finding him should kill him.
Surely there were other people around but they were not of the seed.
We have come from God.
Christ be with you,
Walk in love,
edwinG
 
Hi, since we are on this topic. Can I ask if it is the Churchā€™s belief that we all descended from only one set of parents, Adam and Eve, as in if we all can trace our ancestry back far enough, ultimately our first parents were one pair of Adam and Eve.

Is there any Church document that says this? thanks.
 
ANWK << Hi, since we are on this topic. Can I ask if it is the Churchā€™s belief that we all descended from only one set of parents, Adam and Eve >>

Yep, as I understand it, that is the Churchā€™s teaching. We are descended from these two individuals. The Catechism, while allowing some symbolism in Genesis 1-3, notes that ā€œour first parentsā€ were real people. This thread I started was trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint when they would have lived if thatā€™s possible, looking at Genesis as ā€œhistorical.ā€

I see conflicts with evolution which is what Iā€™m trying to resolve in my mind, while being honest with both science and Church teaching.

See the rest of this thread for the documentation, and the other ones, particularly the interesting one on ā€œpolygenismā€ and human evolution started by HECD (Alec) a few months back. That one generated 158 posts :eek: with 1600+ views.

Phil P
 
I went to a Catholic school. We were taught that Adam and Eve were created about 4000 B.C., a few days after the world was created.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Advannce your argument to him and let him refute it. I would be interested to see his answer.
Click to expand...
This comment is with regard to geocentrism and Sungenis: The Sungenis offer is a fraud. He has made his mind up a priori and there is no way of changing it. If his prize was under the control of indpendent judges, then that would be a different matter.As it is, he will never ever pay up. Now, of course, if he was to come here, or to any other neutral site, Iā€™d be happy to debate him.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
No. Iā€™m claiming that you can translate any frame of reference to an earth-centered reference if you want. It may not be as useful, depending upon your application, but you can do it.

The Bible used an earth-centered frame of reference. Was it objectively incorrect to do so? Was it untrue to consider the sun to have moved around the earth? To assert such is much like asserting the Japanese are incorrect to drive on the left side of the road. It all depends upon the reference point, convention, and utility as to what frame of reference we select. The sun does indeed move around the earth if you pick an earth-centered frame of reference and mathematically model all your celestial movements from that convention. In fact, when communicating with a satellite, we have to worry about the Sun-Vehicle-Earth angle. So, we model the sunā€™s movement around the earth, mathematically, and produce an ephemeris table to allow us to avoid radio frequency interference problems associated with pointing our communication dish toward the ā€œmovingā€ sun.
Click to expand...
Indeed if you are designing communications from the earthā€™s surface to any point or orbit in space then the frame of reference of the particular point of the earthā€™s surface where the communication dish resides will be used.

And ineed it is true that you can translate any one frame of reference to any other.

None of this negates the fact that all frames of reference are NOT equivalent. No point on the earthā€™s surface represents an inertial frame, as was demonstrated by Foucaultā€™s pendulum, the rotation of terrestrial storms (sadly proved in this awful hurricane season) and by the stellar parallax of the earthā€™s solar rotation. So far you have failed to acknowledge the elementary and fundamental difference between inertial frames of reference and other frames of reference.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
 
12,400 years, 6 hours and twenty three seconds ago to be precise-Commander Spock of the USS Enterprise
 
rarndt << 12,400 years >>

Ah ha, then who were the Cro-Magnon? They lived at least 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, and even sixth graders know this. šŸ˜›

They were definitely homo sapiens (our human species). Did they have souls? :confused: Oops sorry to keep this loooooooooong thread alive too. šŸ˜ƒ

Phil P
 
None of this negates the fact that all frames of reference are NOT equivalent.
Click to expand...
Of course they are not equivalent. Thatā€™s why some are more useful than others, precisely because they are indeed different. However, to assert one is objectively true while another is objectively false is absurd.
 
Hi, in the account of Genesis, it is not Church teaching that we have to absolutely understand it as being 6 literal days that God took to make the world, right??
 
It is not Church teaching that we must understand Genesis to mean 6 literal days. You can. You may think that is most likely. However, you are also free to interpret it differently according to decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the early 1900s (just going off memory ā€¦ I can verify when I get home).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top