|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You were misinformed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
Don't be so proud of your ignorance. Man has no clue about creation and universities are the most clueless of all on the issue. If you had a clue, you could approach these topics with some intelligence.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Science doesn't know. It just believes real hard.
So we can believe what we like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Your failure to get it does not mean it ain't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I understand that you state that science does not know. I’m not arguing against that.
I’m 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
Unless there is evidence that it is there, we have no reason to think it's there - like Santa Claus. Your failure to get it does not mean it ain't there.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
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. 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.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1
|
creation writes: 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"..?
In my belief set, God created it and set it up. creation writes: 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. My side will win. 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. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I see what you mean.
So you’re 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024