Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
so what was changed? All I seen was that part of the question was removed. Whats the big deal about that? Is not the answer the same? What I mean is that the whole answer is given....
No, what he did was to take an answer to one question and use it as an answer for another. And we do not know if the complete answer was given. Odds are it wasn't.
That is about as dishonest as you can get.
That is why many politicians demand an uncut version of any interview, in case someone tries to pull something like this.
so you admit it's correct! Thats a start.
Thanks
I disagree, I would have to see the transcript to even see as much as your saying. You tube is not a very reliable source. In my case he stated the entire sentence, regardless of what answer was given. It is a gold mine for any creationist looking for ammunition. Most won't buy what your selling.
so you've just said that you'd have to see it, meaning that unless it fits your particular taste, it's either a quote mine, or an illegitimate source....you don't at all feel guilty of dishonesty here?
"It is extremely improbably that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Ye it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glace, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." - Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol 271 October 1994
"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."
"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."
"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."
above from "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American meteorological society, vol. 63 (November 1982, pp 1328-1330
I wouldn't say that "creation" has zero evidence. What it needs is evidence that does not have far more parsimonious explanations.
No, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. - wiki
It is about the origin of this current instantiation of the cosmos, but does not speak to events prior to the expansion of the cosmos, or even if such questions even make sense.
Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.Its pretty simple.
I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.yes? You are disagreeing that it is not the most popular theory existing today?
My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.Agreed, and your point?
Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.
I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.
My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.
Why would this be strange? Were there not gods-o-plenty back then?Strange how a hebrew wrote about the creation of the Universe, thousands of years ago saying God sent down a light from his realm into the lowest depths where nothing else existed, and he told the light to release itself.
Perhaps a far more parsimonious explanation is that someone just wrote down a popular myth. No "visions" required.Perhaps this light was energy, remembering it was a vision given to a man who nothing about modern physics.
I do indeed.Yet curiously absent. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, where evidence is expected. I inferred from your post that you think such evidence exists.
I would say that the theory best fits the observations, based on the current scientific consensus. Its popularity with the general public is not directly indicative of its validity. Look at religions, for example.
My point is that the BB theory does not support your statement, where you said: "The prediction of creation in this narrative is that our universe did not always exist". You are using it in error.
It doesn't even look like it supports your interpretation of it.I do indeed.
Ah, and there you are. What best fits the observations is what we "know" at present which can and does change. I totally agree that popularity is not an indicator of validity.
I agree and disagree. I do agree that the BB theory doesn't actually prohibit our universe existing prior to the expansion. However, the BB theory supports the Bible narrative and the Bible is what is doing the predicting.
Explain how we are to test that claim. Or is it of no significance?The Bible claims that God created the heavens and earth.
You appear to be claiming to know.We don't know what the singularity held or what came before either by the Bible or science.
What Hebrew would that be?Strange how a hebrew wrote about the creation of the Universe,
toolmanjantzi said:Originally Posted by Subduction Zone
Sight is not our only sense. And we can see things fall, we can feel the wind, all of the things that science treats as correct can be observed in one fashion or another.
Yet you cannot provide objective evidence for your god.
Belk said:I can show empirical evidence for each and every one of those things except God.
Is there empirical evidence for God or is his existence supposed to be taken on faith?
CarlosTomy said:I didn't realize that SIGHT was the only measurement that counted!
The Devil gives me a new toaster with every successful year of service.
Puhleeze.
I'll tell you what I "serve": I serve the search for understanding of what is going on around me the best that I can. I can do no other.
Don't DARE tell me who or what I serve until you understand a fraction of what I do and know.
Thankyouverymuch.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?