Moore's Beach Monster

[BrianC]

Umm, excuse me, but Steven Hawking IS a scientist

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking

And since you brought up Kent Hovind, do you agree with him on his Hydroplate and Ice Shield "theories"?

I'm not sure they quite have the hydroplate theory worked out exactly like it happened. I really can't say, because it, like evolution and big bang, is only theoretical in nature. Hydroplate theory makes the most sense, though. It makes way more sense than continental drift, because the continents and continental self are connected. Pangaea and continental drift act as if the continental self doesn't exist, and they completely eliminate Central America and Mexico and they reduce the size of Africa by half I think it is. I thought it was a third, but it's half if I'm not mistaken. Makes absolutely no sense. And on top of that, some of the continental plates "drift" the wrong direction, and that makes the theory contradictory.

As for the ice-shield, you mean the ice canopy. Well, I haven't quite decided how that happened yet. I say that because the water being under the crust in the beginning would mean the crust had a larger circumference before, which would mean the atmosphere would be more compressed, which would mean there would be greater air pressure. But, that doesn't account for the double air pressure we find in amber air bubbles which is required for dinosaurs, plants and animals to exist in the sizes we find them in the fossil record. Which means something was most likely sitting on top of the atmosphere. I tend to think it was water split into two hydrogen metal shields and oxygen in between them. The reason I say that is because if you take water and super compress it and freeze it to nearly absolute zero, it splits into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen turns into a metal. We learned this with superconductor research. I think this "firmament" canopy is what God was talking about when He says He divided the waters and moved a portion into the sky. I think part of the water was used to form the atmosphere, and the other part was used to form a canopy to hold in the air double air pressure.

SOMETHING increased the air pressure during the time dinosaurs existed. And that is the only explanation for how they could have existed in the sizes in which they existed. Same goes for the plants and other animals and humans. We find a lot of skeletons of humans which are 8, 9, 11 and 12 feet tall. We found bones from a 13 foot human too. The pictures are amazing - I think I saw one of the leg bones next to a man and it was nearly as tall as the man. Humans never stop growing their entire life IF their environment allows it. The parathyroid is what handles how bones are formed. If an environment would allow for a human to get bigger, he would get bigger and the parathyroid would ensure the bones kept growing. You can look at body builders and see how their bones continue to "grow" in different directions due to the forces exerted on the bones by the pull of their muscles. Have you noticed how women who do body building always have these wide jaws? They were not that way before they started working out. They grit their teeth while lifting, which causes the muscles to pull against the bones and the parathyroid causes that bone to be able to reshape itself to accomidate the forces caused by the muscles contracting. This also can cause the brow-line to protrude. They find in African tribes where the people use their teeth for tools a lot, having to chew on things, that their brow-lines are protruding quite a bit. This is due to the jaw muscles being connected to the eyebrows, and so the more chewing the people do, the more those muscles pull on the brow muscles which pulls on the bone causing the parathyroid to want to add to that bone to reshape it and pull it out further. They're not less evolved - they just use their teeth a lot.

Also, scientists have said that pterodactyls we find are too large to fly unless the air pressure was about twice what it is today, because otherwise, the air would be too thin to support their weight for flight. Some have been found to have 50' wingspans. That's one big "bird" right there. And there's no way it's getting off the ground without a lot of air pressure. There's no way the hearts of braciosaurs could pump blood to their heads without added air pressure. Double would increase pumping pressure by four times the amount. Also, without the added air pressure (air thickness), they could not get enough oxygen into their tiny nose holes to feed their lungs without the air friction lighting their noses on fire. And their lungs were not just real huge, so they would need a lot of oxygen to distribute to their bodies. And that only happens when the blood plasma is saturated with oxygen which only happens with double air pressure.

When scientists are asked what could cause the double air pressure needed for dinosaurs to exist in large sizes, they either have no answer, or they say that there needs to be something on top of the atmosphere pressing in (holding in) the air pressure. Creation theory just makes a LOT more sense to me, personally. If their theory were crap, I wouldn't buy into it. It's not about religion for me - it's about common sense. What makes the most logical sense is what I will go with.

[BrianC]

Was theft not a crime before the Ten Commandments?

Law defines crimes. The question should be "was theft a sin before the Ten Commandments", and the answer is, of course, yes. Just because something is not stated as "sin" does not mean it isn't sin. Sin is simply something which opposes God's ways. Anything against God's perfect ways is sin.

God said the people before the flood were unimaginably evil, which means they were sinning like crazy. But also, we are told in the Bible that the Law of Moses had not come yet to inform people of what sin was. And so it says that where there is no law, there is no trespass. In fact, Paul says that he was spiritually alive before he learned about the Law to know what sin was, and then he says he died spiritually. In other words, ignorance is bliss in a sense. You can plead ignorance in God's court, it would seem. However, that's not quite as it seems. It sounds like the people before the flood DID know they were doing evil and rebelling against God, because in the New Testament, it says the spirits of the people before the flood were in prison, and Jesus made proclamation to them after He rose from the dead. I'm guessing He offered forgiveness and salvation to them, because otherwise, He was going down there to rub it in their faces that they were stuck in prison. LOL And that just doesn't sound like Him.

So, this is how I understand it. God says that one must be perfect to enter heaven, meaning that they are without sin. The people before the flood may have not been condemned to hell for being evil, because it says they were only "in prison", whatever that means. We can't know for sure what that means. But it sounds like those people could not go to heaven since they still had evil in them, but Jesus came down and offered them forgiveness to get rid of the evil so they could join Him in Heaven. That's my guess. No way to know for sure, though.

Hope that answers your question thoroughly enough.

Who the hell let this assclown register...

[slow99]

No, logically, morals should not be the same across the world. Morals differ with each belief system. However, everyone borrows morals from the Bible. Otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest. Evolutionists are hypocrits and they need to start living by their own lack of morals and go out and start stealing from people so they can survive. Survival of the fittest. lol

Wow.

[jdgregory84]

I will have to concede that I don't know whether or not he actually does any experimentation, doing a quick search, I do see references to him as both a physicist and a theoretical physicist. Leaving me to assume that he does do experimentation.

I do have to contend on a semantic note that he would still be a scientist, regardless of his participation of experimentation. As scientist is defined as a person learned in science and especially natural science.

True but without the scientific process, it's just a bunch of theories. While I'm sure there are plenty of people out there testing his theories with his assistance some of the things he theoreticizes about are beyond our technological capabilities right now. He seems very focused on black holes and learning more about them which is great but it's hard to study something you can't see. The only actual proof that we have that black holes exists are shifts in light due to high gravitational forces in parts of space that appear to have nothing there. Like I said before, I probably didn't give him enough credit, but after taking a couple of astronomy and physics classes there really are some "out-there" theories being proposed.

[Maddhattter]

The difference is that those guys came up with theories and tested them and used them in experiments. Given, he does stick to astrological theories, making them a bit harder to prove than something that could be reproduced on earth. He's a smart guy, and not considering him a scientist might not be giving him the credit he deserves, but for the most part, he makes a lot of claims based on mathematics without much physical proof of those claims.

I will have to concede that I don't know whether or not he actually does any experimentation, doing a quick search, I do see references to him as both a physicist and a theoretical physicist. Leaving me to assume that he does do experimentation.

I do have to contend on a semantic note that he would still be a scientist, regardless of his participation of experimentation. As scientist is defined as a person learned in science and especially natural science.

[red89notch]

I will agree with the hard headed creationist and say its not a beaked whale. It's obviously a transitional animal that came from the beaked whale through evolution! duh!

[jdgregory84]

Correct. You could never claim a theoretical physicist is a scientist. Steven Hawking is no more a scientist than, say, Galileo, Albert Einstein, Nikolai Tesla, Robert Oppenheimer and Sir Issac Newton(all theoretical physicists). None of those men were real scientists...... Wait, what?

The difference is that those guys came up with theories and tested them and used them in experiments. Given, he does stick to astrological theories, making them a bit harder to prove than something that could be reproduced on earth. He's a smart guy, and not considering him a scientist might not be giving him the credit he deserves, but for the most part, he makes a lot of claims based on mathematics without much physical proof of those claims.

[Maddhattter]

He's a theoretical physicist. He's about as much of a scientist as the guy who thought of the teleporter on the starship enterprise. BrianC was correct in his statement. Basically, Hawkings comes up with ideas, and scientists try to prove him wrong.

Correct. You could never claim a theoretical physicist is a scientist. Steven Hawking is no more a scientist than, say, Galileo, Albert Einstein, Nikolai Tesla, Robert Oppenheimer and Sir Issac Newton(all theoretical physicists). None of those men were real scientists...... Wait, what?

[jdgregory84]

Umm, excuse me, but Steven Hawking IS a scientist

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking

And since you brought up Kent Hovind, do you agree with him on his Hydroplate and Ice Shield "theories"?

He's a theoretical physicist. He's about as much of a scientist as the guy who thought of the teleporter on the starship enterprise. BrianC was correct in his statement. Basically, Hawkings comes up with ideas, and scientists try to prove him wrong.

[racrguy]

Granted, Steven Hawking isn't a scientist, but he's going off of what other scientists have said. In fact, Kent Hovind shows tons of quotes in his seminar and references the articles in which they are quoted. Scientists DO say the universe came out of nothing. You need to do more research...

Umm, excuse me, but Steven Hawking IS a scientist

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking

And since you brought up Kent Hovind, do you agree with him on his Hydroplate and Ice Shield "theories"?

[jdgregory84]

Was theft not a crime before the Ten Commandments?

[exlude]

No, logically, morals should not be the same across the world. Morals differ with each belief system. However, everyone borrows morals from the Bible. Otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest. Evolutionists are hypocrits and they need to start living by their own lack of morals and go out and start stealing from people so they can survive. Survival of the fittest. lol

Man, it's a good thing you read and understood my last post. Because that allowed you to follow up with a post that wasn't completely circular.

Wait...

[BrianC]

No, logically, morals should not be the same across the world. Morals differ with each belief system. However, everyone borrows morals from the Bible. Otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest. Evolutionists are hypocrits and they need to start living by their own lack of morals and go out and start stealing from people so they can survive. Survival of the fittest. lol

[jdgregory84]

You've never heard of primordial ooze?? Then you never listened in your science classes growing up... that's sad...

And I responded to all of the posts - you just didn't notice what I was responding to.

I don't have any "followers" nor do I want any. I don't go brag to anyone. And yes, I'll let our conversation speak for itself here. The skulls do not look a like. The characteristics are very different. But hey, you believe what you want. And I did explain what I believed, you just didn't read it. I stay pretty objective with my belief on what this is. I give my speculation, but I admit that I haven't a clue what it is. I certainly can see that it's not a beaked whale, though.

Like I said, I'm done arguing. I don't know what the age difference is between us, but perhaps we weren't taught the same curriculum. Perhaps the theory I taught is now the more prominent one. Curriculums change. Kids now are being taught that there are only eight planets in our solar system when even all throughout college I was taught that there was nine. Anyways, merry christmas.