|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Since you have the evidence would you please present it in this thread.quote: ICANT writes:
That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly. Please explain how that, 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' is based on any kind of evidence?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Below is the actual address but I prefer you use the search above. The content of Google searches is different depending on your IP and your cookies. Would have been more useful to just point me to the Encyclopedia Britannica article, but thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes: You have no business picking a side that you think supports your religious argument whilst pretending that it's settled science and that no other position exists it isn't and it doesn't. I thought I picked the majority side.
quote: Tangle writes: This is quoted from a talk given by Alan Guth at Cosmic Questions, April 14-16, 1999, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. You haven't the first idea what the Big Bang is, never mind whether anything existed before it. You're miles out of your depth arguing dishonestly. I argue facts that are presented by the scientists I quote.If they are right or wrong is not my fault. Do you think Guth's side is the wrong side?If so why don't you try to present the correct side. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: Paul did: quote: Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen. But exactly what did Paul say? He is the image of the... Who is the He Paul is referring too? Paul is referring to Jesus. The firstborn of creation being in the image of the unseen God.
quote: If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: quote: Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning. But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness. The primordial elements being found throughout the universe also supports God creating the universe. They would have to be there Since God stretched out the heavens you would also see that the universe is expanding. Yes you have presented evidence that supports the BBT as for as it goes. But there are many problems with the BBT. But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT.
here Are the top 10 problems with the Big Bang Theory.
ringo writes: That is not how assumptions are defined in science. For example, the "assumption" that radioactive decay rates do not change has been tested thoroughly. Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation. Invent words if necessary. Tested thoroughly over how many years. Can you tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was a trillion years ago as we measure time? And yes I believe the universe is a lot older than that. Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago. You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it then so what ever you decide is just an assumption. It may be true or it may be false. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : No reason given."John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ICANT writes: I thought I picked the majority side. Why are you picking sides? The fact that there are sides tells you that there is not yet a settled scientific concensus yet you picked a side that you thought would help you. You're also confused about what the scientists are saying - not surprising because you're not a scientist, so you post stuff that you don't understand imagining that it supports your position. The scientists are not saying that the big bang didn't happen, they're saying that a universe existed before it. ie it's eternal.
If so why don't you try to present the correct side. Because there is no correct side yet. Obviously.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son of Man Junior Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 26 From: Ireland Joined: |
Scientist make up theories that are their assumptions based on what they see as fact, their theories are held as fact until another scientist can PROVE it is wrong, there for science is an evolving process, yet religious people have made their minds up full stop. give a scientist the phrase I and my farther are one and he will ask who is his father not who is God?
Jesus father was Joseph, so I believe he was saying that he maybe in his eyes he both looks and thinks like his farther? Not that his father is God? If he meant God maybe he would have said his creator? Or maybe just said God. My assumption being that religion is not a scientific theory and doesn't have to be proven by the religious (its only their belief) but can be disproved by scientists hands down? or can it? the first will be the last and the last will be the first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Your essay is downright confusing. Try capital letters, basic spelling, paragraphs and full stops.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Unseen and invisible is the same thing.
Had the translators used the primary definition instead of the secondary definition it would have read unseen. ICANT writes:
Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not. If you have seen one you have seen the other. They are one and the same John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
No it isn't. It says nothing about duration.
Yes the cmbr is evidence of a long light period in the beginning. ICANT writes:
God did not "create" darkness. He separated the light from the darkness -i.e. He separated the day from the night. That has to do with the rotation of the earth, not the Big Bang.
But that also supports the day the Lord God Created the heavens and earth in that lasted until He created darkness. ICANT writes:
It is not possible to scientifically support creation "by God" unless you can support scientifically that God exists - and you can't.
But the evidence you presented supports creation by God as good if not better than the BBT. ICANT writes:
That's right. YOU don't get to redefine how science defines assumptions.
Words have meanings and we don't get to redefine them to suit our particular situation. ICANT writes:
No, it's perfectly fine to use different definitions of words in different contexts. For example, the word "unity" has a different meaning in politics than it does in mathematics.
Invent words if necessary. ICANT writes:
If you think it was different, you'd have to show that it was different AND you'd have to show what caused it to change. Without evidence of a change, we can't pretend that there was a change.
Can you even tell me what the radioactive rate of decay was 13.7 billion years ago. ICANT writes:
We can test the aftereffects, if any. We don't have to "be there" when a murder is committed to observe that the body is dead and that there is a bullet-hole in it. You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it...And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This one is always quite amusing to me.
ICANT writes:
Well, I wasn't there when my father banged my mother and I was concieved as a result. All the DNA evidence indicate that I'm their biological child...I didn't have to be there in a peep show to know that it happened. And we can test it. DNA. It is true. My father banged my mother. You can make all the assumptions you want but you were not there to test it then so what ever you decide is just an assumption. It may be true or it may be false. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Man
Son of Man writes: Scientist make up theories that are their assumptions based on what they see as fact, Scientist don't make up theories. Assumptions are made. Hypothesis are formed evidence is gathered, examined, tests are made, conclusion are made, and if enough scientists agree it can become a theory. Even if they are wrong, as they have been so many times in the past.
Son of Man writes: Jesus father was Joseph, Jesus had no human father his mother was a virgin when He was born.
Son of Man writes: God maybe he would have said his creator? Why? Jesus created everything and made everything that was made and is the force that holds it together.
Son of Man writes: My assumption being that religion is not a scientific theory Religion is not a theory. It is a fact if when you use the word religion you are talking about a set of beliefs that are believed and practiced by people. There are over 4,000 different religions in the world, and 34,000 so called Christian denominations. But when it comes down to it one's of those that are doing things the way that pleases God is very few.
Son of Man writes: disproved by scientists hands down? What belief can be disproved by scientist? Be specific. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: May the Holy FSM touch you with a Holy Noodly Appendage.
God Bless,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi ringo
ringo writes: Unseen and invisible is the same thing. How so? You are unseen to me as I have never seen you. But are you also invisible? I think you exist as someone using the nickname of ringo. Unseen to me yes but invisible no. God to you is unseen by you but that does not make Him invisible.
ringo writes: Apparently Jesus was not telling the truth, since He was visible and His Father was not. Since they are one and the same they are both visible. If I was standing in front of you, your physical body would be visible to me but your spirit and mind would not be visible to me. But they would be there just the same. They are all 3 one and the same. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Pressie
Pressie writes: My father banged my mother. So What? You were there when the 23 chromosomes from the egg of your mother was fertilized by the 23 chromosomes from your fathers sperm. It makes no difference that occurred because you mother and father had sex or your mother's egg was put in a test tube with your fathers sperm. It works either way. You could have then been placed in a surrogant mother to carry you to natural birth. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024