|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 654 days) Posts: 13 From: Manchester, England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I also suggested that the language may now be dead.
You can suggest all you. Evidence is what counts, not your wild musings. Time for the standard response.Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, it *was* an oral tradition... an oral tradition that got carved into stone... centuries before the hebrews existed.
Even the idea of Adam did not originate with the hebrews.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2370 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see.
we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: It is true there is no direct empirical evidence for this theory but we can extrapolate from what we can see to what we cant see. we cant see neutrons directly but we can infer their existence anyway. And we can test for their existence. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
granpa Member (Idle past 2370 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
granpa writes: And how do you test something like the documentary hypothesis? By examining both the documents themselves as well as actual history. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Theodoric writes: Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs. Confusion between effect and affect is effecting clarity and having an affect on communication. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Thank you for pointing that out. This is a brain glitch I have that I always use effect instead of affect. I appreciate the correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Reborn stars do not conflict with Genesis; the reverse applies [re-pro is based on a core output of the host!]. The preamble must say the universe is finite [Genesis], so the age of the universe does not change no matter how old we deem it. The other factor applicable is that light predates stars and is the first product in the universe [Genesis]; stars don't create light - they merely produce it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
More gibberish.
Did you not learn how to write correctly at school?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Assuming that the sun is second or third generation of stars betrays the same kind of parochial view that prompted the arrogant stupid ape to conclude it was the first. All things in existence repeat indefinitely so there is no reason to think that galaxies count less generations than bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Re-generation, re-birth and geneology are not gibberish but evidenced in all biological and inanimate stuff. Welcome to the universe and planet earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
No, I think you will find that what you have written is in fact gibberish.
Happy to clear that one up for you. Any chance of supporting your bollocks about genesis I created for you? Or are you full of shit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Alfred Maddenstein and IamJoseph,
Unless you're presenting evidence around which you then build your arguments, please stop participating in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 2289 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
Bs'd
From the days of Aristoteles, about 2300 years ago, up to and including Einstein, science believed that the universe was eternal, without beginning or end. With the big-bang theory, science made an about-face, and brought itself in line with what the Bible claims for already 3300 years: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Science now agrees, after thousands of years, that there was a beginning. Were making progress, only it takes a bit long."Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory." Darwin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024