Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[SkyWriting]

Please, don’t tell us that you think the Bible is a credible history book?

Accurate as well as credible. Archeologists find it to be verifiable.
Historians find it to be the best documented piece of literature in all history.
Why do you not want to know that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Accurate as well as credible. Archeologists find it to be verifiable.
Historians find it to be the best documented piece of literature in all history.
Why do you not want to know that?

Are we discussing the mundane history or the miraculous history? Sad how easily (and willingingly) the devout conflate the two.

 

[SkyWriting]

But the more scientific knowledge we have, the better understanding we have of how things work, and, most important, with the hyper powerful too that is the scientific method, we know have an iterative process where the flaws in our understanding are continuously being reduced.

I know the Scientific method is your God, but on the plus side, the truth is coming out, revealing God the Creator as the source of all life.

 

[CoderHead]

Historians find it to be the best documented piece of literature in all history.

Which historians?

 

[SkyWriting]

Are we discussing the mundane history or the miraculous history? Sad how easily (and willingingly) the devout conflate the two.

I do consider those writings to be as valid as my own experiences.

Though when you say "devout" I think more of people who are raised in Christian backgrounds. Usually with religious parents, or in a conservative type of church they attended regularly.

 

[dawiyd]

Accurate as well as credible. Archeologists find it to be verifiable.
Historians find it to be the best documented piece of literature in all history.
Why do you not want to know that?

So, care to explain the different dating in the synoptic gospels of the birth of Jesus.

Case in point, Matthew says he was born under Herod's reign (which ended in 4BCE) and Luke says he was born when Quirinius was governing and conducting a census (which happened in 6 CE) we have a contradiction of dates about a decade apart.

A bit of back story, Quirinius was fighting in a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 BCE. secondly while this war going on he was in the province of Galatia. We also know who were the governors of Syria were between 12 and 4 BCE:

• Marcus Titius 12 to 9 BCE
• Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 BCE
• Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 BCE

4 BCE King Heord the Great died, not a record of Quirinius was governor of Syria, in fact the governors until his death are accounted for.

 

[Freodin]

That sounds more like a religious statement than a scientific one.
You use CBR and redshift as evidence because redshift is misinterpreted and CBR is misapplied.
If misinterpreted redshift and misapplied CBR can be used as evidence of an invisible Bang, then Universe and Life can be used as evidence of the invisible God.

You still don´t get it. We can use redshift as evidence for movement because there is a known physical relationship between redshift and movement. This might be a "misinterpretation" in this case, but at least it is an interpretation of a known and observed fact.

Now there is no such known and observed relationship between God and the universe. There is nothing to "misinterprete" - there is nothing to interprete!

Your only connection of CBR and redshift to the invisible Bang is by hypothesizing (by guessing).

Building a hypothesis is a little different from guessing... but I´m sure that as it works to smear your opponents view, you will continue to use (misinterprete) it in this way.

You on the other hand, are not guessing. You are making things up.

I can also hypothesize a connection between Universe and Life with the invisible God, and my hypothesis would be just as valid or even more valid than yours, since your CBR and redshift are misinterpreted and misapplied.

You don´t have a basis to hypothesize. You can make up any connection you want... it cannot be "as valid" or "more valid" than a connection that is observed and known.

In light of the fact that Universe and Life are not misinterpreted or misapplied as evidence of God, I would say I am in the lead.

Hm... you did not show any kind of connection - not even a made-up-one - between Universe, Life and God... so if making empty assertion about "being in the lead" places you there, you are "in the lead".
But it would be indeed helpfull if you were to bring some evidence for your position, instead of throwing out claims and slandering your opponents.

 

[dawiyd]

Dishonesty is among those who are trying to hide the truth.

Who is trying to hide the truth?

Dishonesty can also be expressed directly or indirectly.

Dishonesty is often indirect so as not to appear dishonest.

I am simply exposing it.

Since I don't think you seem to grasp why I was accusing you of being dishonest, I'll highlight it for you:

"It is observations like these that falsifies the Big Bang. This is why Consensus Cosmology tend to ignore them."

You know, hence why I said:

"Care to be any more dishonest? If science tends to ignore them (I note you have not listed any more than NGC 7603), could you explain papers such as http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0203466v2.pdf And the conclusion at the very end? This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift. Future studies of this system are clearly warranted."

And me bringing to your attention a paper that doesn't ignore it at all, infact addresses it head on. Here's the kicker, there is quite a few papers in this vien, in journals. Hardly people ignoring them.

It would seem like you are accusing me of being dishonest, then supporting what is said with scientific data.

Try actually reading what I post next time, m'kay?

Such a statement is the result of an addiction to myopia among Consensus Cosmology.

Or you just not reading what I post and jumping the gun.

*snip*

Since none of it really had anything to do with my objection.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm sure archaeologists find Huck Finn accurate too.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do consider those writings to be as valid as my own experiences.

Is that a reflection on how you feel about the writings, or about your own experiences?

 

[BananaSlug]

When viewed from the perspective of flawed Big Bang theology, such observations are considered “anomalous”. But it is not the observation that is anomalous; it is Big Bang theology that is anomalous, especially when viewed from the perspective of reality.

According to reality, the observation of different redshift objects being connected is expected. In fact, there is a scientific theory based on reality that predicts them. Such observations are common place throughout the Universe. You just need to know how to look.

I am not that big on redshift but could you explain how "connected" redshift objects falsify the Big Bang Theory?

These are just a few of the many so called "anomalous" objects that effectively falsifies the Big Bang. But Consensus Cosmology would have none of it, so the cosmic Frankenstein monster lives on.

I'm still confused about how "anomalous" objects falsify the Big Bang.

Hypothetical Big Bang theology is filled with too much “darkness” to see anything in the real Universe. This is why mathematical fairies are the life blood of Big Bang, and not observations. Remove the mathematics and Big Bang is as dead as dead could be.

How so?

The Universe is made up of more than 99% plasma.

I can tell you that you are wrong right there. 70% of the universe is dark energy, 25% is dark matter, and the rest is "regular" matter.

The problem with mathematics is that Consensus Cosmology relies too heavily on it to try to understand the plasma Universe, but the plasma Universe itself ignores the mathematics. This is why many observations in the plasma Universe appear "anomalous" to Big Bang theology, but not to Plasma Cosmology.

So if the universe is 99% plasma, how would you explain why galaxies have more gravity that what accounts for visible matter?

 

[Skaloop]

Accurate as well as credible. Archeologists find it to be verifiable.
Historians find it to be the best documented piece of literature in all history.
Why do you not want to know that?

There's a collection of books which is extremely credible and accurate regarding New York City, the Empire State Building, Broadway, all sorts of other landmarks, and even the most recent presidential election. It's all solid and accurate.

It also contains, as its main story, a teenager who has spider-like abilities after being bitten by a radioactive arachnid and is a superhero who swings through the streets of the city on webs of his own making!

Historical accuracy on some parts does not equal historical accuracy on all parts.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I am not that big on redshift but could you explain how "connected" redshift objects falsify the Big Bang Theory?







I'm still confused about how "anomalous" objects falsify the Big Bang.



How so?



I can tell you that you are wrong right there. 70% of the universe is dark energy, 25% is dark matter, and the rest is "regular" matter.



So if the universe is 99% plasma, how would you explain why galaxies have more gravity that what accounts for visible matter?

Houston, we have a problem.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There's a collection of books which is extremely credible and accurate regarding New York City, the Empire State Building, Broadway, all sorts of other landmarks, and even the most recent presidential election. It's all solid and accurate.

It also contains, as its main story, a teenager who has spider-like abilities after being bitten by a radioactive arachnid and is a superhero who swings through the streets of the city on webs of his own making!

Historical accuracy on some parts does not equal historical accuracy on all parts.

Unless, of course, the source is two thousand years old.

 

[SkyWriting]

So, care to explain the different dating in the synoptic gospels of the birth of Jesus.

Case in point, Matthew says he was born under Herod's reign (which ended in 4BCE) and Luke says he was born when Quirinius was governing and conducting a census (which happened in 6 CE) we have a contradiction of dates about a decade apart.

A bit of back story, Quirinius was fighting in a war in Asia Minor from roughly 6 to 1 BCE. secondly while this war going on he was in the province of Galatia. We also know who were the governors of Syria were between 12 and 4 BCE:

• Marcus Titius 12 to 9 BCE
• Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 BCE
• Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 BCE

4 BCE King Heord the Great died, not a record of Quirinius was governor of Syria, in fact the governors until his death are accounted for.

I don't know the details well enough to figure out what God
is trying to say to you. But it seems to be working.
God had some comments on commemorating special dates
which has led me to steer away from such studies.

 

[CoderHead]

God had some comments on commemorating special dates which has led me to steer away from such studies.

So you claim the Bible to be an authoritative history but refuse to acknowledge discrepancies on the grounds that God told you not to pay attention to dates?

 

[BananaSlug]

So you claim the Bible to be an authoritative history but refuse to acknowledge discrepancies on the grounds that God told you not to pay attention to dates?

How convienient, right? Every believer has a reason not to believe.

 

[SkyWriting]

There's a collection of books which is extremely credible and accurate regarding New York City, the Empire State Building, Broadway, all sorts of other landmarks, and even the most recent presidential election. It's all solid and accurate.It also contains, as its main story, a teenager who has spider-like abilities after being bitten by a radioactive arachnid and is a superhero who swings through the streets of the city on webs of his own making!Historical accuracy on some parts does not equal historical accuracy on all parts.

Not by itself, no.
People do seem to be fascinated with mutation fiction.
No doubt about that.

Here are 400+ zombie films

And 100 books on evolution

(At a quick glance, it looks like there are about 5 people who support
evolutionary theory enough to write about it.)

 

[SkyWriting]

So you claim the Bible to be an authoritative history but refuse to acknowledge discrepancies on the grounds that God told you not to pay attention to dates?

We each have our specialties.

 

[sandwiches]

We each have our specialties.

Are you saying that ignoring discrepancies is your specialty?? It seems more like not making sense is your specialty.