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.
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?
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.
Are we discussing the mundane history or the miraculous history? Sad how easily (and willingingly) the devout conflate the two.
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?
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.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.
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.Your only connection of CBR and redshift to the invisible Bang is by hypothesizing (by guessing).
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.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.
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".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.
Who is trying to hide the truth?Dishonesty is among those who are 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.
Try actually reading what I post next time, m'kay?It would seem like you are accusing me of being dishonest, then supporting what is said with scientific data.
Or you just not reading what I post and jumping the gun.Such a statement is the result of an addiction to myopia among Consensus Cosmology.
Since none of it really had anything to do with my objection.*snip*
I do consider those writings to be as valid as my own experiences.
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.
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.
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.
The Universe is made up of more than 99% plasma.
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.
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?
Houston, we have a problem.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?
Unless, of course, the source is two thousand years old.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.
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:
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.
- Marcus Titius 12 to 9 BCE
- Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus 9 to 6 BCE
- Publius Quinctilius Varus 6 to 4 BCE
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?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?
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.
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.
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?