Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2018 6:53 PM
213 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,904 Year: 18,727/29,783 Month: 672/2,043 Week: 224/386 Day: 83/44 Hour: 5/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5152
53
5455
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 781 of 944 (841298)
10-11-2018 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 772 by Tangle
10-09-2018 3:05 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
You were misinformed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 772 by Tangle, posted 10-09-2018 3:05 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3965
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 782 of 944 (841306)
10-11-2018 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 777 by creation
10-11-2018 9:05 AM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
Do you have any evidence that God changes the way time and space work the further way from Earth we go?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 9:05 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 784 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 11:32 PM Larni has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15750
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 783 of 944 (841326)
10-11-2018 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 779 by creation
10-11-2018 9:07 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

Man has no clue about creation and universities are the most clueless of all on the issue.


Don't be so proud of your ignorance.

If you had a clue, you could approach these topics with some intelligence.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 9:07 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 11:33 PM ringo has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 784 of 944 (841381)
10-11-2018 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by Larni
10-11-2018 9:29 AM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
Science doesn't know. It just believes real hard.

So we can believe what we like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by Larni, posted 10-11-2018 9:29 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 786 by Larni, posted 10-12-2018 3:39 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 785 of 944 (841382)
10-11-2018 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by ringo
10-11-2018 12:42 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Your failure to get it does not mean it ain't there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by ringo, posted 10-11-2018 12:42 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by ringo, posted 10-12-2018 11:37 AM creation has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3965
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 786 of 944 (841388)
10-12-2018 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 784 by creation
10-11-2018 11:32 PM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
I understand that you state that science does not know. Iím not arguing against that.

Iím asking you what evidence you have for your assertion that space and time change the further you go from Earth.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 11:32 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by creation, posted 10-12-2018 5:43 PM Larni has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15750
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 787 of 944 (841404)
10-12-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by creation
10-11-2018 11:33 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

Your failure to get it does not mean it ain't there.


Unless there is evidence that it is there, we have no reason to think it's there - like Santa Claus.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 11:33 PM creation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 788 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-12-2018 12:43 PM ringo has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1897
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 788 of 944 (841410)
10-12-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 787 by ringo
10-12-2018 11:37 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Unless there is evidence that it is there, we have no reason to think it's there - like Santa Claus.

We know there is not a shred of evidence for "other natures" or any "fishbowl" but there is a mountain of evidence that Santa Claus is a real historical figure. Photos, movies, books, magazines, Santa is so infused in modern culture that millennia from now he may be the most recognized person in history.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by ringo, posted 10-12-2018 11:37 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by ringo, posted 10-12-2018 12:56 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15750
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 789 of 944 (841411)
10-12-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by Tanypteryx
10-12-2018 12:43 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Tanypteryx writes:

We know there is not a shred of evidence for "other natures" or any "fishbowl" but there is a mountain of evidence that Santa Claus is a real historical figure.


I picked Santa Claus because I was reasonably sure that creation wouldn't believe he was real. He might believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-12-2018 12:43 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11597
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 790 of 944 (841416)
10-12-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 778 by creation
10-11-2018 9:06 AM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
creation writes:

In my belief set, God created it and set it up.

Fair enough. Were you taught this initially or did you wake up one day with an epiphany that it was true? Or do you also just "believe real hard"..?

creation writes:

My side will win.

If by "your side" you mean God, I agree. God always wins. How can He lose? The mistake we make as believers is in proclaiming our arguments as Gods arguments...as if He gave us a dose of intelligence beyond normal...but when faced with debates, we end up resorting to ridicule and name calling of the "educated" ignoramuses.

I have a question for you. If God gave you one minute to convince the atheists and agnostic science humanists here of the reality of your Savior and Master, what would you tell us?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ĖRC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ĖMark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 9:06 AM creation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2018 5:34 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 791 of 944 (841425)
10-12-2018 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by creation
10-11-2018 9:05 AM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
In my belief set, God created it and set it up.

A proper creation-believer position.

Science doesn't know.

And then you swerve off the road to puke all over your own shoes in the weeds.

Try to follow this:
God created everything that is.
Science studies everything that is.
Therefore, science studies what God created.

Now creationists show up with their highly fallible Man-made theology declaring that if the universe is not completely in accord with their contrary-to-fact claims, then God does not exist. Well, if you insist on making contrary-to-fact claims, then of course God's Creation will disagree with you! Duh???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by creation, posted 10-11-2018 9:05 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 794 by creation, posted 10-12-2018 5:45 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 792 of 944 (841426)
10-12-2018 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Phat
10-12-2018 4:11 PM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
The mistake we make as believers is in proclaiming our arguments as Gods arguments...as if He gave us a dose of intelligence beyond normal...but when faced with debates, we end up resorting to ridicule and name calling of the "educated" ignoramuses.

That is the reason for my "Cheer" (a kind of feature that I normally avoid).

For far too many "believers", God always agrees with their own prejudices. If they hate certain people, then so does God. It also ties in to "cheap grace", the down-side of Christian doctrine that whenever you "stumble" (Born-again Bumper Sticker: "I'm not perfect, just saved.") all you need to do is ask your invisible friend, Jesus, for forgiveness, which he always gives unless you have very serious mental health issues, then you are forgiven for everything without ever having to make things right with the person you had transgressed against.

God must never be an excuse for our worst impulses. Rather, God must be an ideal for us to strive towards. Why do so few "believers" understand that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Phat, posted 10-12-2018 4:11 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 793 of 944 (841428)
10-12-2018 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by Larni
10-12-2018 3:39 AM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
Since you do not argue science doesn't know, then we would look somewhere else for the answers. So what best fits the bible? I would say a recent creation of the earth and universe. Therefore the best fit for what time would be like is different out there. Otherwise, we get old ages.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by Larni, posted 10-12-2018 3:39 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by Larni, posted 10-12-2018 6:36 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 794 of 944 (841429)
10-12-2018 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by dwise1
10-12-2018 5:23 PM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
Science sits in their little fishbowl of time and space. One observation point in a vast universe. How it is in their view and perspective is not how it is outside of the fishbowl.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2018 5:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3965
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 795 of 944 (841437)
10-12-2018 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by creation
10-12-2018 5:43 PM


Re: A couple questions for creation ...
I see what you mean.

So youíre position is one that comports with the Biblical record and that time cannot, by definition be constant in distant places (on an astronomical scale)?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by creation, posted 10-12-2018 5:43 PM creation has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5152
53
5455
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018