Nic Samojluk
Newbie
- Apr 27, 2013
- 1,748
- 170
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I do not reject the facts, but rather the questionable interpretations of said facts and the premises they rest on.
Upvote
0
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.
It makes no sense to reject facts because they contradict with creation myths in books.
Does not follow at all. You have not yet established that the correct replacement of the singularity is inconsistent with the BB and the expansion of the universe.
Halton Arp was a crackpot. He remained a crackpot.
I am not ignoring the facts, but rather the interpretation of those facts built on questionable premises that cannot be subjected to the strict requirements of true science. No science man has so far been able to explain how singularities behave because they are not subject to the laws of nature.We aren't. You are ignoring the facts because they contradict your religious beliefs.
I have no need to provide a proof that BB is wrong. All I need to do is to remind you that the BB theory is built on unverifiable premises that cannot be subjected to testing and replication. Singularities do not belong in science, but rather science fiction.Moreoever, if you are going to claim that an interpretation is wrong, then show it is wrong.
It is this type of attitude that made people invent such things as embedded age where God creates a fake history to fool us.
I have nothing against the use of the many connotations of the “myth” term. I am only opposed to the incorrect use of the term in connection with the Bible.
There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.
Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.
There might be some mythical elements found in Scripture, but the bulk of this sacred book deals with credible historical events quite often attested by the testimony of credible witnesses corroborated by archaeological finds.
Wrong, they are subject to the "laws of nature". The problem is that we do not fully understand all of the "laws of nature" yet. The fact that we do not fully understand what goes on inside a singularity is not evidence against that science. You are merely grasping at straws.I am not ignoring the facts, but rather the interpretation of those facts built on questionable premises that cannot be subjected to the strict requirements of true science. No science man has so far been able to explain how singularities behave because they are not subject to the laws of nature.
That's good, because the embedded hierarchies do pass the "strict requirements of science".The embedded hypothesis is no better than the belief in singularities. When dealing with events that cannot pass the strict requirements of science, we need to place them in the category of science fiction.
Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.
As am I.
Indeed -- however, the creation of the world as described in Genesis 1-3 is not one such event.
The universe is probably much older than 14.7 billion years, while our planet is much younger, and life on planet earth is perhaps measured in double digit thousands of years.
I consider the verification of Jesus and the apostles of Moses and creation to be the highest validation possible.
With respect specifically to the earth's atmosphere, climate and environment, how far back in the distant past do you think we can go.Science is good whenever its findings can be verified, tested, replicated, and falsified. But when dealing with events located in the distant past, science is no better than science fiction.
I consider the verification of Jesus and the apostles of Moses and creation to be the highest validation possible.
The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.Stories in books are not validation of anything.
Actualy, scripture written more than a generation after his death by people who where not even alive when he was. In other words, "hand-me-down-stories", nothing contemporary.The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.
The exception is Scripture which was validated by history and Christ rising from the dead. Your denial is futile.
I have no need to provide a proof that BB is wrong. All I need to do is to remind you that the BB theory is built on unverifiable premises that cannot be subjected to testing and replication. Singularities do not belong in science, but rather science fiction.
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?