Re: Biblical Understanding of Gravitation
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
> > > > Victor:
> > > > 1. If atoms change, they would need to change
> > > > relationally. Relational change is where all aspects
> > > > change together, in parallel.
> > > Randy C:
> > > But atoms RELATE to each other in many ways. Because there
> > > is no single relationship, it would be utterly and totally
> > > impossible for them to be changing at all and not be
> > > noticed.
> > > Period.
> > Victor:
> > You are using your assumption that atoms do not change
> > themselves relationally to construct an empirical
> > system which circularly confirms that atoms do not
> > change themselves...
> Randy C:
> Actually, that is not what I said at all. Instead I said
> that atoms relate to each other in MANY different ways.
> If ANY one of them was changing, we would necessarily
> notice because the other relationships would be thrown
> > > > The Bible clearly states...
> > > Why would anyone possibly care what an ancient book filled
> > > with myths, contradictions, inconsistencies and failed
> > > prophecies has to say about the natural world?
> > Because we can see the creation...
> NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!
> There is NO "we"! No one sees these things other than
> you. The first person plural pronoun "we" is not something
> you should ever use when describing your beliefs.
> I've probably made that point 50 times. The total number
> of times that you can point to a single person who says
> that they also see the things you see is:
> At some point you have to confront the undeniable fact
> that NO ONE sees what you see. So there is NO "we".
> Get help.
> Hi, Randy. I just stopped by because i truly missed you.
- --- In email@example.com, "VictorM" <godsriddle@...> wrote:
>if he actually understood the issues involved he would have long ago
> > Well, I guess he's not going to explain it for us. Seems to me that
thought this through and had an explanation already at hand. So it
should not surprise anyone that, even despite my prodding by personal
email, Victor has failed to offer an explanation for these observations.
> >cosmological shifts. One has to be careful to show the evidence and to
> > Eric
> Sorry Eric. It takes time to compose an essay on Doppler and
distinguish assumption from what is clearly evidence. I think it took
two weeks to answer because I have been busy with many other things.
>Thanks, Victor, I understand the busy-ness issue and I certainly am in
> Please examine my essay on Doppler.
favor of carefully considering evidence and examining assumptions. I
have read your essay several times and have been reading other materials
concerning the issue. I am pressed for time right now, but would like
to just make a few very brief comments on your essay before digging in
in greater detail a bit later. I'll do this in a separate post so I can
more easily identify the points in your writings to which I'm referring.
Enjoy this nice summer day,