Interesting - object in solar system...

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
User avatar
ParticleMan
captain of 100
Posts: 723

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by ParticleMan »

GrandMasterB wrote: December 4th, 2017, 4:39 pm In God's universe there is no need for black holes and dark matter. I find a parallel with the EU in that dark matter and black-holes are also not needed.
Indeed. Light organizes chaotic element, not dark.

Even new theories don't need dark matter or dark energy. From time to time, such papers are mentioned here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/
Last edited by ParticleMan on December 5th, 2017, 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by Durzan »

Meh. I can see a universe with them, and without them. Heck I can think of a perfect reason or two for why Black Holes exist from a Spiritual Perspective:

1. The Big Bang solves the equation for the Black Hole. This means that theoretically speaking each black hole could contain its own universe. Worlds (and possibilities) without number anyone?

2. Black Holes could be a way of recycling matter. IE they are the Universe's Trash Bins. Then God can take the recycled matter out of the black hole (which we wouldnt be able to detect), and use it for another creation.

User avatar
GrandMasterB
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1125

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by GrandMasterB »

ParticleMan wrote: December 4th, 2017, 6:04 pm
GrandMasterB wrote: December 4th, 2017, 4:39 pm In God's universe there is no need for black holes and dark matter. I find a parallel with the EU in that dark matter and black-holes are also not needed.
Indeed. Light organizes chaotic element, not dark.
So true! I also follow Suspicious Observer. Thanks for the links.

LightisTruth111
captain of 50
Posts: 99

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by LightisTruth111 »

6And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound.

7The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

8And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; 9And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

10And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

12And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

13And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

This soon occurs in this generation in a appointed time, fulfilled by objects in space. Some will escape before it occurs those worthy.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by Durzan »

Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.

User avatar
ParticleMan
captain of 100
Posts: 723

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by ParticleMan »

Durzan wrote: December 6th, 2017, 2:26 pm Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.
Should not belief be based on evidence? Popular does not imply true. Consensus does not imply correct. Official does not imply veritable.

Where money, politics, and pride supplant truth is where people and practices become corrupted. Hence, the corruption in numerous aspects of the mainstream of the world, including the institution of science, which includes honest as well as pseudo science, the latter largely comprising unverifiable theories that are taught as truth.

All are entitled to their own opinions and rationale. If you determine that it's "Best to stick with main stream science," then you may do so. But unless you offer compelling reasons for your opinion, seeking to go about dissuading people from an opinion contrary to yours, to interrupt their rejoicings, is unlikely to effect much.

Paradigm shifts tend to be prefaced by serious reflection by the open-minded. But some detractors seem unwilling to sufficiently suspend their disbelief so as to acquire adequate understanding. Instead, some succumb to the natural man, such as in rushing to judgment and committing fallacies, especially ad hominem, against those who do not believe according to their own will and pleasure, as well as to their differing belief.

LDS advocates of EU theory might agree with the comparison that mainstream cosmology is to apostate Christianity as plasma cosmology is to the Restoration. But that religious doctrines potentially correlate with scientific principles is less seen as evidence for the veracity of such principles than as icing on the cake of the paradigm.

User avatar
GrandMasterB
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1125

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by GrandMasterB »

Durzan wrote: December 6th, 2017, 2:26 pm Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.
Mainstream science teaches our children there is no God. It teaches that we are an accident of nature, which nature also came into being by accident. How is it best to believe in this science exactly? Mainstream science "observations" are also proven wrong every day and fall flat time and time again. Forgive me if I do not understand your voice of reason in this.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Interesting - object in solar system...

Post by Durzan »

GrandMasterB wrote: December 7th, 2017, 4:06 pm
Durzan wrote: December 6th, 2017, 2:26 pm Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.
Mainstream science teaches our children there is no God.
A misconception of understanding. Scientific studies themselves do not support the notion of the existence or non-existence of a supreme being(s), although many scientists have come to their own individual conclusion that God does or does exist, and yet others still attempt to use Science to prove or disprove the existence of a being such as God (to little effect, as there is not really a scientific way to go about testing to see if God exists). What they do support however, is the assumption that the universe is governed and regulated by a complex network of consistent laws and phenomenon that can be observed and studied. Again, this conclusion is largely independent of the notion of there being/not being a Creator.
GrandMasterB wrote: December 7th, 2017, 4:06 pm It teaches that we are an accident of nature
I assume you are referring to the primordial soup being the formation of life? Again, another false misconception. The materials needed to form life (IE Amino Acids), have been proven to be able to form under certain conditions. Electricity can cause reactions that can form some (but not all) of the basic building blocks of life, but it cannot animate the materials to form even a basic bacterial cell. To say that life is an accident is a gross misnomer. Scientists have used their limited knowledge of the laws of chemistry and biology to construct a hypothesis about how the first life forms were animated, but without the ability to replicate it or show conclusive proof it is little more that highly popularized speculation. And again, this speculation doesn't indicate one way or another whether the creation of life was a random occurrence or that it was directly caused by someone or something else.
GrandMasterB wrote: December 7th, 2017, 4:06 pmwhich nature also came into being by accident.
As far as scientists know, the Big Bang was the start of reality as we know it; what happened before, we have no clue. We also do not know what caused the Big Bang, and again, any ideas that we do have about it amounts to little more than speculation.

GrandMasterB wrote: December 7th, 2017, 4:06 pmMainstream science "observations" are also proven wrong every day and fall flat time and time again.
Thats kinda the entire point of the Scientific Method; make observations under specific conditions, form a number of tentative statements (hypothesis) that can explain said observations, test the statements further to see if they hold up, then drawing conclusions. ALL of science is built around trying to poke enough holes in hypothesis to make them sink.

Post Reply